Boarding someone elses boat

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

No.

People aren't reading what I write now, or, as a couple posts have noted, insist that they would walk right past any sign I posted to "save" my property for me.

In the face of such "there is only my way" sentiment, there is nothing to be gained by explaining my reasons.

So one or two people don't like what you are saying, why does that mean the rest of us can't engage in a conversation?

[Greatketch33]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Gee Jammer why can't you just answer the question with no extra words? It is either Yes or No? Come on you can do it all I've asked of you is a straight no extra words answer. Yes or No, come on now I'm rooting for you.

Okay fellow sailors it's time for a time out.

Perhaps there is no need to press Jammer for any more explanations, thoughts, comments, or other --- a continuation of such inquiry by many folks regarding Jammer's opinion and or mindset shall only come across as online post bullying.

If one reads the thread it is logical to conclude the following:

Jammer does not want unauthorized access to his boat regardless of the situation;

Nor shall he access a boat of another unauthorized regardless of the situation;

Jammer's resistance to make available on his boat a sign does work in concert with his verbal word play on questions that are asked directly, and although those answers may appear with a dash of vagueness, overall it is very obvious his position.

The value about these topics is that it demonstrates how people are different and gives us an opportunity to reflect on our own values and beliefs.

I do not speak for Jammer per se, he can fend for his own, but I did want to put a summary of how I saw the interaction of folks on this thread.

On a side note: if you happen to see my boat in danger or able to proper anything that would cause damage, please come aboard. I would appreciate your effort and concern,

Jammer- thank you for offering your opinion and helping to bring up a topic not often discussed.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly View Post
Stepping back a bit, I think this is a critical point that folks like Jammer seem unable to comprehend. No right is absolute. All rights, from free speech, to the right not to be killed, are tempered by other rights. And all rights come with equal levels of responsibilities and duties.

In the case of clanging halyards, your right to have them flapping around butts up against other people's rights not to be abused by excessive and unnecessary noise. You have a right to leave them flopping, but you have a responsibility to respect other people's rights regarding excessive noise. And you have a duty to act reasonably depending on the situation.

In the case of not wanting any assistance no matter what, this is so far outside the norm of community behaviour that some special action is required to tell people (i.e. a sign). But even here, this would not be absolute. If Jammer's boat is drifting towards others, then his private property right goes out the window. Probably also the case if it's going ashore. The impact of a destroyed boat is felt by the community which has to deal with the cleanup. I would respect his right to have his headsail flog to death IF there is a sign telling me to stay off -- unless there was a serious risk to others around from flying debris. My right not to be hit by flying crap supersedes your right to not have me step onto your boat.

There is no such thing as an absolute right to anything.

Nice post, Mike, here in the US, the saying, often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, our first Supreme Court Justice, "the other man's rights stop the other side of your nose."

However, I don't think this is a legal issue, it is more a behavioral one. Just think how many of us ignore the uppermost speed limit when we have long distances to go, and yet still consider ourselves law-abiding, when we know that is illegal.

An instance in this thread that gives me pause is where the poster claimed to have removed the offending halyard when another boat owner refused to frap it. That requires the owner to re-run the halyard in the absence of a messenger line. To me, that would escalate an already bad situation, and I wouldn't do that. But then, the problem becomes "how can I best take care of myself given this aggravation?" If the owner is absent, no problem, I take some old string and tie it off--quick, easy, does no harm. He/she has to deal with the fact that someone boarded his boat without being invited, and with untying the string, not much inconvenience. In most cases where I know of this happening, the owner feels appropriately embarrassed, and one usually winds up being friends.

Now, suppose he/she is still "home on his boat", like me, but likes the "music" of the halyards banging? and refuses to quiet his? At that point, no one's in the marina office, no one other than oneself to handle the situation. I think I'd put my ear plugs in, and maybe turn on my own music to help distract me from the noise, but this would not be the end of it.

People talk at marinas. What happens next will probably be what has happened since humans gathered in small groups. If the owner were approached by the marina management to conform, he/she might--or might not do so. But if one steps too far out of line, decided by the majority, the out of line one gets shunned. That is a normative process of human interaction, and quite possibly arose from our need to be in groups for everyone's protection.

Ann

[alctel]

Originally Posted by Greatketch33

Okay fellow sailors it's time for a time out.

Perhaps there is no need to press Jammer for any more explanations, thoughts, comments, or other --- a continuation of such inquiry by many folks regarding Jammer's opinion and or mindset shall only come across as online post bullying.

If one reads the thread it is logical to conclude the following:

Jammer does not want unauthorized access to his boat regardless of the situation;

Nor shall he access a boat of another unauthorized regardless of the situation;

Jammer's resistance to make available on his boat a sign does work in concert with his verbal word play on questions that are asked directly, and although those answers may appear with a dash of vagueness, overall it is very obvious his position.

The value about these topics is that it demonstrates how people are different and gives us an opportunity to reflect on our own values and beliefs.

I do not speak for Jammer per se, he can fend for his own, but I did want to put a summary of how I saw the interaction of folks on this thread.

On a side note: if you happen to see my boat in danger or able to proper anything that would cause damage, please come aboard. I would appreciate your effort and concern,

Jammer- thank you for offering your opinion and helping to bring up a topic not often discussed.

I think the problem most people have is that he refuses to leave a note or sign, and then says he will prosecute anyone who may mistakenly help out his vessel out of kindness. And then he gets all self-righteous about it.

Like - a sign saying 'NO TRESPASSING' would fix all that.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Jammer, you have made your desires quite well known now, and while I don't agree with them, I will accept them as being what you truly want.

Now, would you be willing to explain to those of us who hold different opinions WHY it is so important to you that no one step foot upon your boat? It is difficult for me to understand your extreme reluctance to allow this simple and generally harmless act. I am not arguing that you don't have the right to prevent this sort of trespass, I am wondering what causes you to exercise the right so vigorously.

Jim

Whatever his reasons, they probably make sense to him. What's strange though is the refusal to let people KNOW he rejects any assistance.

Put a freaking sign on your boat!

[Greatketch33]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

.....But if one steps too far out of line, decided by the majority, the out of line one gets shunned. That is a normative process of human interaction, and quite possibly arose from our need to be in groups for everyone's protection. Ann

Oh I wish this was true in all cases.

We have a cigar boat that launches in a very peaceful sailboat marina. His extremely loud and smelly boat has put him as a most unwelcome boater there, yet, every year he exercises his right to launch at the expense of all others there.

It's not uncommon to hear folks curse the guy and his boat; praying to Neptune to take this boat and really smoke it like a cigar.

Others take the route of wishing the fuel prices raise to the point where it's unaffordable for that cigar boat to out anywhere. Lololol

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by alctel

Like - a sign saying 'NO TRESPASSING' would fix all that.

Originally Posted by Wannabe-007

In fact, even the much discussed "No Trespassing" sign would not stop me from boarding a vessel in some level of distress.

Signs clearly wouldn't accomplish anything.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

No.

People aren't reading what I write now, or, as a couple posts have noted, insist that they would walk right past any sign I posted to "save" my property for me.

In the face of such "there is only my way" sentiment, there is nothing to be gained by explaining my reasons.

Jammer, your last statement is incorrect. With a reasonable explanation of your unusual position, we might come to respect it. As it is, your refusal to explain reduces your credibility, which has now reached a rather low state for me. I'm left with the feeling that you don't care so much for your highly vaunted property "rights", but that you are simply picking a fight with an as yet unknown Samaritan. This smacks of hostile-aggressive behavior, something best left ashore.

Jim

[Jammer Six]

If you say so.

I'm doing what I'm doing for my reasons, and I suspect that that's exactly what you're doing.

The conclusions you reach about my "credibility" is your business, as are any other conclusions you reach based on whatever analysis you see fit.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Signs clearly wouldn't accomplish anything.

It would with me. If I saw a "NO TRESPASSING" sign on your boat, I'd just let it drag on to the rocks, and presumably make you happy.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It would with me. If I saw a "NO TRESPASSING" sign on your boat, I'd just let it drag on to the rocks, and presumably make you happy.

You mean you and 007 have different views on boarding someone else's boat, and that's okay with you, in spite of the fact that your views conflict, and one would board while the other wouldn't?

Be still my heart.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

[COLOR="Blue"]Nice post, Mike, here in the US, the saying, often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, our first Supreme Court Justice, "the other man's rights stop the other side of your nose."

However, I don't think this is a legal issue, it is more a behavioral one. ... But if one steps too far out of line, decided by the majority, the out of line one gets shunned. That is a normative process of human interaction, and quite possibly arose from our need to be in groups for everyone's protection.

Nicely put Ann. This is a basic social behavioural issue, and it's why I suggested people ignore Jammer -- the online version of shunning. If he's not an intentional troll, he's clearly far outside the community standard. Ignore him, and he'll go away.

It's clear the vast majority of cruisers would step in to help a fellow boater facing imminent danger. But there are grey zones like the flapping halyard situation. I too can't imagine ever stripping a halyard off another boat. But I have secured other people's halyards AND I've been the recipient of the same kindness . It did teach me to do a better job of tying things off.

Most of the time these issues can be dealt with through good old discussion. I'm always amazed at how people work themselves into a frenzy imagining all manner of slights, when all that is required is honest discussion.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Greatketch33

Jammer- thank you for offering your opinion and helping to bring up a topic not often discussed.

You're welcome.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

You mean you and 007 have different views on boarding someone else's boat, and that's okay with you, in spite of the fact that your views conflict, and one would board while the other wouldn't?

Be still my heart.

I have no problem with your approach being different to mine.

But I think it's only reasonable to let people know that you will prosecute anyone who tries to help you.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

But I think it's only reasonable to let people know that you will prosecute anyone who tries to help you.

Our opinions (and our approaches) are different there, too.

I think this tactic will be far more effective, and this thread has convinced me of that.