SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: New nvdz Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-11-2002 03:57 PM
New nvdz

Yep its official, I saw a sign in the marina office about the Navy no float zone today and it says slow speed no wake within 500 yds and no aproach within 100 yds or its a felony with a 6 year and $250,000 fine possible. The sign didnt have any statute or cfr or usc numbers on it. It didnt say who posted it or who was going to enforce it. BUT, it sure looked official. What if the navy sails next to your moored boat?
08-03-2002 02:37 PM
New nvdz

I think using "common sense" goes a long way when dealing with the case you mentioned.

I''m sure that if you are almost 100 yards from a vessel that you''re supposed to stay clear of, that you could find a way to communicate with it.

Since you already said you operate out of Norfolk, I happen to know that you can get in touch with the base Commander or OD BEFORE you get underway.

To put things in another light, what should the watchman do if he sees an unauthrized boat aproaching his ship and is now within the 100 yard perimeter? Remember, he does not know if the lives of his crewmates are potentially at risk. Also remember, we ARE at war.

If my son was on that ship, and you violated the DO NOT ENTER ZONE without prior permission - well, I hope you have plenty of life insurance for the loved ones you will leave behind.

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
08-03-2002 05:37 AM
New nvdz

Ok letís say that you donít request a 100-yard passage in a narrow channel (just for arguments sake) what is the penalty for not having a VHF? Are you now in violation of federal law? Is it a felony? Are you going to be strip searched and sent to Cuba as a military prisoner? Is the slow speed within 500 yds so we can take better aim and increase decision time to blow you out of the water? I donít think my wake is going to put a navy boat on the dock, or spill a coffee. Are you going to have access to a lawyer unlike the others? (Not that it will help anyone but the lawyer) Will my boat be confiscated? Will the prodding help my constipation? Yes i am full of it. For the people by the people. Try to remember that!
07-21-2002 07:27 AM
New nvdz

The article is in the July issue of BoatU.S. pp 16-17.

Also, according to the article, "For boaters in an area where the channel does not allow such clearance, skippers need to contact the ship on channel 16 with a request to pass within 100 yards."

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
07-21-2002 04:55 AM
New nvdz

How this thread got from restricted zones around U.S. Navy ships to how to stop wars and how to deal with alleged despots is beyond me.

However, in an attempt to get it back on track - I recently read a brief article in Sail Magazine that decribed and illustrated the levels of restrictions around Naval vessels, bases, and other facilities covered by the restrictions.

Basically, there are two zones. The outer perimeter (from 100 to 500 yards from the vessel) is a "no wake" zone. The inner perimeter (0 to 100 yards from the vessel) is a "do not enter" zone.

Considering recent events, and the fact that we ARE at war, I personally don''t think the new restrictions are a problem. Naturally, if your ability to maneuver in and out of your slip is severely hampered as a result of the new restrictions, then I would advise that you make your case to the USCG and local Naval base Commander. I''m sure some accomodation can be reached.

~ Happ sails to you ~ _/) ~
07-20-2002 06:55 AM
New nvdz


You have cut-and-pasted the words of someone who writes nice prose, but he fundamentally repeats one basic thought over-and-over. We humans have instinctive drives to acquire property and comforts, and to procreate, and we are willing to repel, with force, any effort by outsiders to harm our families or to take our property, and that instinct is the underlying cause of war.

For centuries, all the greatest minds that mankind has been able to produce have not been able to find a way to stop people from going to war against each other from time-to-time. The best minds of this century thought that WWI would be the war to end all wars, and they thought that WWII would be the last great war, but we know that we have not seen the last war. Nevertheless, your Mr. Pugsley believes that he has found the solution that has eluded all the greatest minds since the inception of humankind. He has found the way to end all war. (Is it possible that he is suffering from a touch of egomania?) He says, "The solution to all forms of war, including terrorism, will be found in a deeper understanding of man''s biological programming."

Now, let''s explore the "depth" of his thinking. Mr. Pugsley explains that, we humans are biologically programmed to acquire food, property and creature comforts and to procreate, and we are willing to repel, with force, any effort by outsiders to harm our families or to take our property. By my way of thinking, that is not a very "deep" concept. It''s actually a thought that has passed through the mind of Everyman. At some time or another, all of us have thought we might have to defend, with force, our families or our property.

Mr. Pugsley believes that, if we truly want to end all wars, all we have to do is find "a deeper understanding" of the above concept. Mr. Pugsley doesn''t say what more we need to understand about that concept. Perhaps he believes that we do not understand that other people don''t want us to harm their families or to take their property, just as we don''t want them to harm our families or to take our property. Mr. Pugsley believes that, if we respect the rights of murderous, suicidal, barbarians who strap bombs to the bodies of their children, and who kiss them good-bye, and send them off to die, then they will respect our rights. If that is the revolutionary idea that the "deep thinking" Mr. Pugsley has stumbled upon to put an end to war, I''m afraid Mr. Pugsley can''t claim to be the original author of that idea. That idea is known as the "golden rule," and that idea has been the basis of every system of law that has ever been devised by civilized man. It is an idea that is inculcated into every child by his or her parents, school and church, but, despite all those efforts, and the best of intentions, we still have wars.

Mr. Pugsley proposes that "The answer to minimizing human conflict, and particularly war, will be the design of a social contract that protects every individual''s property," but that, too, is not a new idea. Where has old Pugsley been for, oh, say, the last century? We devised numerous social contracts in an effort to put an end to war. That''s why the League of Nations, and the United Nations, and a whole plethora of treaties were created, but none of them succeeded in their lofty goal. Why? Because people comply with contracts only as long as they believe it is beneficial to them to do so. When someone like Saddam Hussein decides not to comply with a peace agreement that requires that he allow inspections, to ensure that he is not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, how do we enforce that contract? We have an absolute, indisputable right to seek assurance that he isn''t secretly manufacturing nerve gas, biological warfare agents and nuclear weapons to use against our citizens within our own borders. We can sue him, perhaps in a world court. (That is an idea that is frequently proposed by anti-war crowd.) But, all a court can do is enter a judgment on a piece of paper, and perhaps order that Mr. Hussein comply with the contract. But, what do you do if he disobeys the court order? That piece of paper doesn''t automatically solve the problem. It has to be enforced in some meaningful way. We have tried imposing sanctions, but they have not been successful. Should we just sit here and wait for these barbarians to nuke the City of New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles? That would relegate President Bush to a place in history alongside Nero, who, you will remember, fiddled while Rome burned. President Bush has decided to pre-empt the threat, to intervene before the threat becomes reality, and he''s right in doing so.

If Mr. Pugsley finds a way to end all wars, I will be the first to suggest that we erect a monument to his greatness, but, before we erect that monument, Mr. Pugsley needs to flesh out his idea a bit more. So far, I haven''t seen anything but shallow, common platitudes in Mr. Pugsley''s thinking, and we don''t build monuments to such twaddle. I don''t understand how you can inhale those old, stale, failed ideas, and call it "a breath of fresh air."

I also don''t understand why you persist in posting this propaganda on a sailing website.
07-18-2002 10:46 PM
New nvdz

I do know a lot do not like what I say, But ...You do know it needs to be said.

The Roots of Terrorism By John Pugsley
June marks the beginning of the tenth month in the War on Terrorism, or as Doug Casey calls it, "the Forever War."
Forever seems to be an accurate description of war in general, as inter-tribal aggression has been a characteristic of Homo sapiens from the beginning. Anthropologists classify it as a general characteristic of hunter-gatherer social behavior.

Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson calls the practice of war "...a straightforward example of a hypertrophied biological predisposition [emphasis added]. With the rise of chiefdoms and States, this tendency became institutionalized, war was adopted as an instrument of policy of some of the new societies, and those that employed it best became -- tragically -- the most successful."7 As a result, six thousand years of recorded history appears as an endless series of wars interspersed with brief periods of recuperation and rearmament.

Terrorism is the easiest if not the only strategy of war left open to a group that cannot directly attack or defend against a superior armed force. The U.S. colonists who were confronted with the superior army of King George saw the futility of following the accepted rules of war. They fired from behind trees and walls, engaged in sabotage, tarred and feathered innocent Tories, and thus were denigrated as rabble terrorists by the British. In our day, the Israeli commandos that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 were called terrorists.

But the actors change costumes as power shifts. When ''terrorist'' tactics succeed in overthrowing the incumbent power structure, terrorists are reclassified in the history books. Today Sam Adams and John Hancock are remembered not as terrorists but as heroic freedom fighters. Menachem Begin, who ordered the destruction of the King David Hotel, subsequently became Israel''s Prime Minister and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

The chameleon nature of "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" leaves politicians struggling to distinguish terrorism from their own strategies of aggression. The U.S. Department of Defense, for example, defines "terrorism" as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." 8 It seems a perfect description of the U.S. military, or the armed forces of any major power.
Considering mankind''s innate aggressive tendencies, can the War on Terrorism ever be won? Can we end the Forever War?

Yes. But it will never be accomplished through military victory. The solution to all forms of war, including terrorism, will be found in a deeper understanding of man''s biological programming.

We are each endowed with powerful primal instincts that natural selection perfected as survival mechanisms long before Homo sapiens was a twinkle in evolution''s eye. All life forms require two things: an instinct for self-preservation and for procreation. Two powerful primal instincts that support self-preservation and procreation are territoriality and hierarchy. Today, these instincts are permanently hardwired into all mammals. They dominate human behavior, and therefore hold the key to the solution of inter-tribal aggression.

The territorial instinct is the internal, subconscious program that urges almost all animals to mark the boundaries of their chosen habitats, defend against intrusions, and battle for food, lairs and mates. In humans, the territorial instinct pushes us to acquire property, and defend it against threats, theft, and trespassing. We "mark" our land with deeds, our bank accounts with name and number, and our mates with rings and contracts. We are angered and enraged when our property is taken.

The hierarchical instinct pushes us to seek approval, climb the social ladder, and achieve dominance among our peers. In the non-human animal world it is documented everywhere from the struggle for the position of alpha male in primate groups to the pecking order of chickens. In human culture, the drive for status creates the endless battle for political power and the insatiable desire for property.

Viewed through the lens of these two primal instincts, the root of all conflict is the innate, subconscious drive in all humans to acquire and defend resources. When individuals feel their territory has been attacked, they instinctively feel rage and seek vengeance. As Wilson notes, under the sway of our primal instincts we are "...strongly predisposed to slide into deep, irrational hostility."9 Contrary to the nonsense perpetrated in the media, suicide bombers don''t sacrifice their lives in hopes of a sexual paradise in the afterlife. Their irrational hostility boils up from deep within the limbic system of their brains. Their primal instincts take control.

Such instincts are not devils that can be exorcised through fear or punishment. As long as people feel their property has been stolen from them, their primal instincts will urge them to seek revenge at any cost. The answer to minimizing human conflict, and particularly war, will be the design of a social contract that protects every individual''s property. Our innate human nature leads directly to the conclusion that the Forever War will end when all of us are sovereign individuals, and we feel securely in control of our individual lives and property.


If John Pugsley''s thinking makes sense to you ... it''s a breath of fresh air to me each month! ... you''re hereby invited to visit & at least subscribe to his freebie letter & eventually subscribe to his regular monthly newsletter.

"There''s no scarcity of opportunity to make a living at what you love. There is only a scarcity of resolve to make it happen." -- Wayne Dyer

06-27-2002 03:16 PM
New nvdz

Quote- "Sailormon6 if you were a man, i''d kick your ass for GP." -End Quote

Colehankins, if you were a man, I''d be scared.
06-27-2002 10:54 AM
New nvdz

Yo Tom
"(or any other extremists)" I take offense. By the mere fact that I said watch out for your Gov labels me an extremists? By telling you that your gov is wrong/abused its powers, should aide you to make more informative decisions at the voting booth( not that it will change anything) I love the fact that this forum allows me to vent or impart my opinion about boating. Just like jeff_h.who i have a tremendous amount of respect for. The opposite side of the coin isnít always the wrong side, is it? About the retort about free thinkers. Its years later after his death when the free thinker gets his due. While breathing, the free thinker is usually shunned and sometimes jailed then killed. Search your mental database.Sailormon6 if you were a man, i''d kick your ass for GP
06-27-2002 08:20 AM
New nvdz

ndsailor you are right.

But, do you know what?..... As kooky as they are and as fanatical as they are, I am glad that there are (a few) people like colehankins out there. I think its good that we have these people *way* out on the political ends (both left and right). I think it keeps everyone and this country "honest" about issues and things. Not that I really agree with colehankins (or any other extreemists), but sometimes that ''lone voice'' needs to listened to and their information digested. Because sometimes, through all their wacked out ideas or theory''s, there are little bits of "things or ideas" that have some merit that needs to be gleaned out.

Though, I hope colehankins relax''s just a bit and enjoys a little more in life .... especially being a sailor. And I hope he gives the Navy or the USGC or whatever government agency a little more leeway (both figuratively and literally) when he is out enjoying himself on the water. However misguided he thinks these agencies are, I trully beleive from the bottom of my heart that the VAST majority are trying to do the right thing for the people of this county.

Have a GREAT July 4th on the water this year and remember.....this country is not perfect but it is pretty damn good, we try really hard and I am very proud of what it does do and what it stands for.

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome