Return to Index
Read Responses
Cruising Sailors Forum Archive
You are correct, I am sure there is a lot we do not know
In Response To:
I seem to remember
()
Messages In This Thread
C'mon, we all knew it was just a matter of time, right...?
A case if the case "doesn't ring true"?
Think they have a case
Apparently this has happened to others with satphones
I find the shift from the use of radio to sat (or other) phone technolodgy unsettling...
The CG is ruled by procedure
The CG seems the biggest cell phone proponent.
Have you used the SeaTow radio check service?
Thanks, I'll try that. I haven't had VHF contact with another boat, in years.
Would be nice, but I doubt my VHF would reach the 70 miles to the nearest one!
While out cruising VHF radios act
True that. And the government has cut much of the costs of VHF support.
I, also, will not have one as a replacement
Here's another photo. That's us taken from the other boat. The
Here's one later over looking the harbor entrance to Santiago.
"We" is a group that detest's the Kaufmans. I'm not in that group.
There is a thin line between success and failure.
I'm with you tom. While I think the Kaufmans
I want to modify my position in light of Jon said.
You know the saying
That's so true on so many levels when cruising
I'm not part of the group that "detests the Kaufmanns", either...
Well, thanks for that Jon !
I'm just glad I'll never have to go up against you in court... (grin)
The moonrise last night was pretty sweet, as well...
In Southwest Harbor
We leave for Maine next Tuesday
I don't mind your clearly negative opinion post. Just use "-I- knew it was just a matter of time,right...?
Fair enough, it was presumptious of me to speak on behalf of all of us here...
"why should the satphone company be singled out" - two words: "deep pockets"
Comment at the end of news the piece said...
As I said above, I wouldn't
They want money too...
"certainly no attorney..would take on a contingency"
An attorney perhaps
?
Actually for me, I wondered why they scuttled the boat?
The service was turn OFF, it did not fail, that where I have a problem.
I seem to remember
You are correct, I am sure there is a lot we do not know
So a business can decide it's liability, just by putting it in the fine print?
Of course you are being facetious, a judge decides your liability based on what's in the fine print
So many misstatements of fact and law
Must be frustrating to see the "all lawyers are,..." generalization mire what's going on here.
"would you buy a plan from them and head out into the Pacific?" - that is the crux of it...
Gee I just hope the manufacture has the balls
Wow, a lot of angst there
.
REBEL HEART'S prolific blogging might come back to haunt them...
Ooops, a couple of examples, courtesy of a poster on CF...
Blog; rambling personal diary, opinion,fiction,unedited,...often boring zzz....
Are you suggesting that nothing Eric might have posted pubicly in a blog, or on an internet forum...
Unfortunately Jon, this is unlikely ever to be in front of a judge or jury.
Suggesting, no. More adamant. What in the world could he blog which would affect this accusation?
Oops, more 'unsworn testimony' surfaces...
Give it a rest
LOL! Actually, no... Anyway, I'll shut up now, going sailing again for awhile, anyway (grin)
We'll look forward to hearing about that
All I see is your obsession with these people.
Do you mean to tell me I paid liability insurance on my shops for 30 some years and didn't need too??
What about insurance?
Good question. My policy coverage says," Sudden and accidental,...
Expensive
I'm almost certain they were not insured...
More light shed on the Kaufman case
Looks like a PR blunder