Ned Divine wrote:
We use 200m of a 5km beach here. Man comes as a client in my office, sees a kiting photo and says - first thing - we kiters are all bastards for kiting outside our designated area (happens with learners or when the wind drops) and putting swimmers at risk. I treat him mildly because of the private nature of my job.
A few days later I nearly jump over a swimmer swimming in our designated, buoy-marked area. As I turn away from him, I hear his voice: "hey, Vangelis, it's me, Jimmy!!!" ...
PS This man RichardM clearly wants to have the last word on the argument, hence the repetitions in increasingly more words. Still I agree with Poacher though! I think he did the right thing. I also tell people kindly that being around where people kite - provided they can easily avoid being exactly there - can be risky. When I do that with a smile and consideration it is 99% appreciated.
If I threatened sexual abuse of their family members I am sure that the port police would be called to the spot in no time.
1. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. What you describe doing is NOT the situation under discussion.
Do you think it would be “99% appreciated” if you went up to someone and told them that if they didn’t move out of your way, you would deliberately endanger them because they were where you wanted to kite? This is the situation being discussed.
2. “...I am sure that the port police would be called to the spot in no time.”
But they would have no reason to ban KITING !
On the other hand, if they get called because non-kiters allege being ENDANGERED by KITING activity, they WOULD have a basis to ban kiting.
loco4viento wrote:WOW! Richard M, I was impressed by your proposed light wind test course with PMU a while back, but I think you have outdone yourself with this one. Way to go!....
You have me confused with someone else. I don’t respond to PMU.
@ Poacher, seems to me like you did everything right, and no I can't see any threat in your words either
@RichardM, superior right of use?? If everyone has equal right to enjoy the lakes why should a boat have 'superior right of use' to a kiter?
If you hate kiters so much why don't you take up a different sport?
Please don't assume that kiting in the US is the same as everywhere else, it's not, some of us actually enjoy it
After you learn how to read, take a look at #10
in my previous post for my reason “why should a boat have 'superior right of use' to a kiter?”
Or get a program that reads text and have someone install it for you.
crash&burn wrote:so my buddies and I are playing a pickup game of baseball in a park. We are not in a baseball diamond but just a grass field in a park. In the middle of the 6 inning a family comes down and setts up a picnic right in the infield. I walk up to the mother and say" excuse me, we are playing baseball right here and you may be in danger of a ball hitting you or your family"
according to RIchard M ( the official bore your ass off the thread lawyer of kiteforum) this is a threat and I am stepping on their Superior use. what the f-ck, it is called common courtesy which I guess in this day in age is replaced with selfishness.
Your screen name evidently is your way of explaining the quality of your example.
jkrug wrote:richardm's logic and argument are seriously flawed. first off, there is a HUGE difference between a warning and a threat. warning people that where they're at, and/or what they're doing, may result in harm is completely different than1. 1. telling them you are going to intentionally do them harm (i.e., a threat). if i setup my kite for a self-launch, and subsequently some beach-goer comes and sets up shop in a potentially harmful area relative to my launch, 2. it's not a threat to ask them politely to move; it's actually being considerate.
if i were to put a beach chair down in the middle of a highway to have some lunch, is it a threat if someone tells me i should move, or a warning? but richardm would say: pedestrians always have the right of way, so why should i move?! a ridiculous analogy perhaps, 3. but no less so than richardm's analogy to rape.
if there is a rule/law that states poacher could not kite there, then poacher was wrong. but as far as the story goes, there is not such a rule/law, and therefore poacher's actions make perfect sense. perhaps richardm needs some quiet time to (re)think .
1. The definition of “Harm” INCLUDES endangering them and/or making them THINK they are in danger (whether done intentionally or not). Obviously, therefore telling someone that if they don’t move then “you are going to intentionally”
endanger them =do them harm
is a threat.
Saying “move or I might
knife you” rather than “move or I’ll knife you” doesn’t make it not a threat. At best, it’s just a LESSER threat.
2. Absolutely correct. But when you politely say you’ll endanger them if they don’t move, you are obviously threatening them.
3. WTF is the matter with you? Is it that you just read some other stoned poster’s comments and assume they’re true? Show me where I alleged that any action is analogous to rape and I’ll pay you $100.
Otherwise, perhaps you should use some of your quiet time to actually read my posts before you try to state what they say.
4. While on the subject of analogies, I hope you realize that the main reason your highway analogy is “ridiculous” is because there exist rather definitive laws giving the vehicles a somewhat superior right to highway use than a drunk with a beach chair. If kiters had this type of established right, this thread wouldn’t exist !!
FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS THE FIRST FEW TIMES,
please concentrate hard enough to grasp the differences between:
1. Explaining to a non-kiter that their actions may be putting them in danger from OTHER kiters –NOT YOU.
This is acceptable if necessary but it would be BETTER if you got them to correct their behavior for some other reason rather than fear of their being injured.
2. Politely asking them to move because YOU need space and with NO indication that you will do anything that might endanger them if they don’t move. There is nothing wrong with this if not done to the point where you disturb them.
Needless to say, I maintain that if they don’t move, you shouldn’t kite. However, if you did kite (and thereby endanger them whether they knew it or not), at least you didn’t also THREATEN them with the exact best reason for a ban.
3. Politely asking them to move and explaining that if they don’t, then YOU will DELIBERATELY do something that will endanger them. Especially bad.
Besides THREATENING them, you’re EMPHASIZING to them the exact best reason for a ban
and since they’re already peeved, they are more likely to use it against kiters at the first opportunity.
And I hope everyone realizes that IF they should be injured AFTER being THREATENED,
the kiter responsible will likely be burnt crispy toast as far as the subsequent legal actions go and it’s even possible to end up as the defendant in a criminal proceeding charged with serious things like assault with a deadly weapon, mayhem etc. It probably wouldn’t be real helpful as far as access for other kiters is concerned either.
4. And note that in the case at hand, the threat was to endanger them REPEATEDLY by kiting around them.
5. Politely asking them to move and explaining that if they don’t, then you’ll shoot them and rape their dog as punishment for their being in your way. As I uselessly pointed out before, this type of threat is BETTER from an access point of view than the threats in #3&4 because after they lock you up for making terroristic threats and conspiracy to commit animal abuse, there’s no reason to ban other kiters.
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)