Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2nd paragraph.......I recall some regular posters on this forum stating how you prevent anyone from trespassing on your land is you put up signs stating......." crossing this line costs $10,000"..
They then stated anyone caught doing so, a judge orders him to pay you $10,000.
It wasn't so bad that one regular poster posted that, but how many agreed that it actually worked.
Now, you were talking about " stupid people" ?
I often see, in rural areas around here, interesting ways for the landowners to tell idiots to stay off from their fields (they shouldn't even have to be told, they ought to have brains enough to know better):
* No Trespassing. We have guns and shovels.
* No Trespassing. Violators will be prostituted. (that one was the most entertaining I'd seen over the years)
Do you think the trespassers are actually shot, or they are actually sold into prostitution?
(for the record, I think there should be a set of stocks on the town square and buckets of rotten tomatoes. If that doesn't correct the problem... jail time)
I've been in some rough water and would never attempt a perpendicular course.
In my most threatening situation I changed course and ran w/ the waves, all was good.
Looking for the rationale on this craft to run perpendicular.
Thanks
Are you being serious?
I don't have all that much boating experience. But I have enough to know the rational for pointing the bow to the waves in rough water (perpendicular course to the waves). In fact, had I not known that as a teen, I'd very likely have been dead a long time ago--twice.
You do know why a boat/ship bow is designed the way it is, right? And you do know why big waves plowing into the bow is a thousand times safer than big waves plowing into either side of the boat/ship?
We're not talking a wave-runner or speedboat that can outrun waves; we are talking a slow, big, cumbersome boat/ship.
We can start threads on any topic over here that catches our imaginations, or is entertaining. We don't need any commentary about it from the peanut gallery. If they don't like it, they can go to some other sub-forum and post over there. No matter how goofy the topic seems to you, apparently it had some relevance to what we discuss over here. If you don't think so, then fine. Move right along....
FYI, "vatacvalves" (the OP) is NOT a regular poster here (this was a hit and run thread). I take issue with his idea that there is any "stigma" associated with being a survivalist or prepper. It was obviously designed to get a lively discussion going, by those who accepted its premise. I do not. The burden of proof of any such "stigma" lies with the OP and his apologists. So far, no proof has been forthcoming.
I don't give a fork whether you leave a link or not, or whether you agree with us or not. We are tired of people who come over here to criticize us, while contributing zero to our discussion.
Melchisedec is not a regular poster here, either. I did a search, and came up with three posts in the past year, in the P&SS forum, all of the in this thread, first critiquing, and then slandering, us.
I've been in some rough water and would never attempt a perpendicular course.
In my most threatening situation I changed course and ran w/ the waves, all was good.
Looking for the rationale on this craft to run perpendicular.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Are you being serious?
I don't have all that much boating experience. But I have enough to know the rational for pointing the bow to the waves in rough water (perpendicular course to the waves). In fact, had I not known that as a teen, I'd very likely have been dead a long time ago--twice.
You do know why a boat/ship bow is designed the way it is, right? And you do know why big waves plowing into the bow is a thousand times safer than big waves plowing into either side of the boat/ship?
We're not talking a wave-runner or speedboat that can outrun waves; we are talking a slow, big, cumbersome boat/ship.
I think Copymutt was interpreting "perpendicular" to mean perpendicular to the direction of wave travel.
If that is the case, y'all agree on how to take waves, and disagree on which words to use.
I often see, in rural areas around here, interesting ways for the landowners to tell idiots to stay off from their fields (they shouldn't even have to be told, they ought to have brains enough to know better):
* No Trespassing. We have guns and shovels.
* No Trespassing. Violators will be prostituted. (that one was the most entertaining I'd seen over the years)
Do you think the trespassers are actually shot, or they are actually sold into prostitution?
...
The most common one I used to see around TX was
"Trespassers will be shot,
Survivors will be shot again."
While I don't know of anyone who was sold into prostitution because of trespassing, I know of at least two women who turned to prostitution to feed their families, because the men (Husband or Significant Other) in their life were too busy with "the good life" to see the S--t coming.
I never blame the woman in that situation, BTW.
I blame the men in her life.
If that makes me sexist, it is a label I will wear with honor.
The most common one I used to see around TX was
"Trespassers will be shot,
Survivors will be shot again."
I like that one.
I live in an area that was very rural forty years ago, but has turned into a metro ****hole, for the most part. In what few fields are left, I often see clueless people simply wandering onto them for God knows what reason. They are most often obviously the "snowflake" types. I really don't get it. I spent a good deal of my childhood on a farm, and we certainly didn't wander around on someone else's property unless we had permission and a good reason to do so... unless of course, we really did want to get shot.
I recall having a couple of dogs who liked to wander... and were shot. One came home with a .22 slug lodged in her cheek--she survived after a bit of "surgery." She also came home with a mouthful of porcupine quills one time. Boy was that a mess. Only once though! She didn't get shot again, either. Sometimes dogs learn quicker than people.
Because someone on this very forum, awhile back, started a thread on cannibalism as a way to show how "macho" the regulars on this forum were.
The comments by the regulars were repulsive and the worst comments came from an Alaska woman who was moderator of this forum and no longer is here posting.
Any sane person who read that lengthy, long running thread would question the sanity of the regulars who were posting here at the time.
I am sure some of the long time regulars remember exactly which thread I am referring to.
Cannibalism has been the subject of several interesting threads. You are not required to read them.
By reading the comments by some of the survivalists in those threads, the question of....why is there a stigma attached to survivalist seems to be answered.
The thread I was referring to was started by poster......... 20 years in Branson?
The most admired poster by people claiming to be self sufficient was a woman who moved to Alaska, bragged about her physical strength and endurance and received as her means of survival a government check ( disability SS)
What a role model for the " self sufficient" crowd posting here!
THAT answers the question why there might be a stigma connected with SOME of the survivalists.
The thread I was referring to was started by poster......... 20 years in Branson?
The most admired poster by people claiming to be self sufficient was a woman who moved to Alaska, bragged about her physical strength and endurance and received as her means of survival a government check ( disability SS)
What a role model for the " self sufficient" crowd posting here!
THAT answers the question why there might be a stigma connected with SOME of the survivalists.
You may be referring to the woman who used to be the moderator here. Did you ever read any of her multitude of other posts? If not, you should do so before judging.
I also recall the huge flame war over that (SSI thing) quite a number of years back. Another poster who used to post here a bit (I wish I could recall the name) completely flew off the handle and went bat-crazy ballistic. I don't recall reading many (if any) posts from him after the incident. Perhaps he had a heart attack or aneurysm over it, because that's exactly what I was worried would happen to him as I read those posts. I've never sensed such anger on an internet forum. Most of it got deleted, as I recall.
Ultimately, you will find very few "preppers" or "self-sufficiency" participants here (or in general) who are flat broke and trying to live off the land 100%. There have actually been a couple of people who have posted here over the years who were definitely back-to-the-land types and had very limited monetary resources. Living in teepees and yurts, etc. And that's fine, great for them; I respect them. But that's not the norm. I would say that most have a decent income of one sort or another--retirement, still work a job, farm, ranch, and yes... some have SSI, some have a healthy bank account, some have dividends or annuities from investments, etc.
That's not a sin, and it doesn't mean they are not interested in preparedness. The common thread is that they all believe in being prepared for some level of "trouble"--be it some natural disaster or something far more serious like an extended loss of modern technology or civil war/unrest (which could also come about from a natural disaster).
You seem to be equating those who believe in preparedness (of whatever level) with those who truly do want to "live off the land" or hardcore survivalists. Sometimes they are one-and-the-same... sometimes not. That's why we all tend to get steamed when someone comes on this forum ranting about some aspect of "preparedness and self-sufficiency" that might well only apply to a very few people. Not everyone aspires to be a truck farmer or live off wild edibles. Yes, some do (there are a few here now and again), but others are into a totally different strategy.
Personally, I'm more of the type that would like to wake up one morning in about 1880. I'm more interested in an Amish sort of existence. But there are tons of different approaches: high-tech sufficiency, survivalist (militias, etc), anti-government types, grow-your-own "natural foods" existence, wilderness survival, disconnect from modern society, blah blah, or any combination of these. But all are interested in preparedness and sufficiency in some regard, no matter their level or source of income. At least if they are here on this forum and not a troll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
