Posted by J.M. on February 04, 19100 at 11:29:21:
In Reply to: Re: liberty& RE: Can a civilian capture another vessel? posted by Scott on February 03, 19100 at 23:18:37:
Scott,
This is obviously a complex issue because there is no easily agreeable solution and we may have to agree to disagree. In terms of the applicability of this discussion to this forum I would say that these are important issues for all divers and up until your last posting most readers had very little idea who or what Steve was all about. Thanks to your detailed descriptions you may have saved some young, impressionable diver the bad Karma and early demise of a life following the allegedly "twisted" Steve. Not only is this discussion valuable in this forum in spite of Steve but it is also valuable because there are issues of freedom and censure discussed in this forum all the time. Except for personal attacks, our gracious host, Mr. Baillod, does not appear to censure for content when there is discussion of rights and freedoms of shipwreck divers and historical enthusiasts, which seems to me to be covered under this heading.
In terms of your paternalistic suggestion that we have a duty to protect the neophyte divers, or any other adult for that matter, from the Steve's of the world, I could not disagree with you more. As with most paternalistic laws, I would maintain that it is essentially good intentions with bad results. Except in the case of children, I would suggest that a person is not free unless they can choose to wrong themselves without legal recriminations. In other words, if we censure Steve to protect Joe neophyte Diver, we are negating both of their freedoms and practicing bad policy. This is bad policy because any solution that can be applied will have to involve more restriction on everyone, and history, as you well know, has shown us that freedom costs lives and Joe neophyte's life is not worth the encompassing loss of everyone's freedom. There are those who support your paternalistic position that would call this utilitarian philosophy callous and primitive, but these types of policy conclusions have been made numerous times in our American history, and rightly so, to buy freedom with people's lives. Consider WW2 as a prime example.
I would like to point out that I am not defending Steve or any of his policies but I do think you are echoing a popular current that seeks to censure ideas that are not "politically correct" and I believe people should be vigilant about movements to restrict freedom.
Respectfully,
J.M.
: J.M.
: Needless to say I disagree. I do not think your looking at the larger picture. I respect Dr. Steve's right to free speach as I would anyones. The issue is not Kant, Hobbs or Mill. My resoning (or lack there of depending on your point of view) goes a little deeper in History than that. Why I addressed the good doctor's unique and interesting social economic perspective speaks to the issue. In this case we are back to Aristotle "to understand the deed, look to the motive."
: If you would grant me one small indugelce and look back and actually read Steve's volulous postings and then look at the man you may begin to come to terms with what we are grappling with here. Dr. Steve can often be found crusing around the great lakes in a full size Ford with the back seat removed (so of course he has a place to sleep) a zodic on the roof a 25 horse in the trunk with a few odds and ends of dive equipment packed around it. He protests to have maps and lists of just about every missing or lost goast ship in the great lakes. Recently he posted mine sweeper locations near Capatain Kid Island at Isle Royale on this list.
: He esentually and habitually urinates on the research of what the rest of the historical and archaeological comunity regards as the leading authorities on the subject and alledges some kind of superior research capability or experance and presents himself as a leading authority on the subject of great lakes shipwreck research.
: However, no one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever met up with the good doctor out on the lakes actually doing the research or ground proofing the finds he alledges to have made. Also, when those foolish enough to go out and look for one of the sites Steve alledges to have found they never seem to be able to refind the site he has such a percice location for.
: Steve is dangerous. Should some neophite, based on the good Doctor's research go out on good faith to dive one of his sites and get into serious trouble then what do you do?
: If you are an armchair historian/archaeologist then I guess you have no problem with this. You can rationalize this away as some diver getting into trouble and the author of his own misfortune. I do not agree. As I am sure you also would defend my right to free speach and an opinion, I think it is very important anyone subjected to Steve have a very clear understanding of who they are dealing with and his degree of "professionalism."
: In this instance it is necessary to look to the small step from nurosis to physicosis. The nurotic builds castels in the air the phychotic moves in. I do not specialize in the behavioral sciences but in my opinion, it appears that Steve has moved in.
: The question then becomes why are we subject to his tirades, his political views, his efforts to inlist and recruit divers to one political cause or another on a Great Lakes Shipwreck Reasearch chat group, a forum for Historians and Divers? This of course begs the question why are you and I debating the matter here as well? The answer is extreamly simple, Steve is a fraud. In the esoteric study of Great Lakes Shipwecks he has found away of ligitimizing himself a method of declairing his own self importance a means of demonstrating his self percieved intellect. Steve is in fact well read on the subject of great lakes shipwrecks but his method is the antithisis of any historian. He mixes fact with fiction and cojecture, I suspect is no longer able to tell the differance.
: In the vanacular of the lakes it is time for Dr. Steve to "fish or cut bait." I would be most interested in one bona fide shipwreck find he has made. If Steve wants to discuss shipwrecks and great lakes history I have no problem with that. If he is looking for a place to engage in story telling and nurotic fanticies, cultural insensitivity, insults and liable I respectfully suggest that this is not the place.
: In the interim, I have a degree in history, anthropology and a third in archaeology. (God only knows what I would do for one in spelling LOL) and thirty years expearance in great lakes research with numerous shipwreck finds publications documentaries films etc. and I openly place my personal and professional reputation on the line and caution anyone reading Steve's interesting "research" not to rush out and drop down on one of his finds. An equal degree of caution should be applied to being swayed by his political or legal perspective. I have my own copy of Black's I do not need Steves quotes or his own "interesting" definitions and understanding of the law. (In my misspent youth I was also a police officer.)
: Steve is both a nusance and a danger. The only thing worse than ignoring him is not ignoring him. There is no doubt in my mind that he is going to get some young person killed. It has happened before it can happen again, I have had two E mail messages from divers asking about Steve's "new finds" and getting ready to go out and do a 230 foot dive based on his locations.
: The responsable thing in this case, and in my view, is to call a spade a spade expose him for what he is, as it has now become a matter of public safety.
: It is time to bid Dr. Steve a fond farwell. I appologize for my many errors in this note, it is late and I am tired, sick and tired!
: Kindest regards,
: Scott McWilliam
: Scott,
: : I would like to take exception with you on a couple of the issues that you have raised in your recent posting. Why should it matter what happens to a man when we are merely considering the weight of his arguments? (I'm referencing your apparent suggestion that the philosophy of J.S. Mill should be discounted because he suffered a nervous breakdown) In logic, your suggestion would be called a Red Herring because it appears as an attempt to distract from the real issue. In terms of your reference to Hobbsian philosophy do you think that Thomas Hobbes could have been "describing" the State of Nature rather than advocating a human lifestyle that is nasty, brutish and short? If you are attempting to ascribe these nasty, brutish prescriptions for living to a Hobbsian philosophy I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that you have a valid point of view. As to your suggestion that Steve is a fool you must realize that you are illogically begging the very question that we are grappling with. Steve's foolishness, or lack thereof, is meaningless in relation to his freedom to express himself without having to defend himself against a censor. Once again I will say, (with due credit to J.S. Mill) that Steve enriches us merely because he is expressing a view that is apparently contrary to our own. I must admit that Steve's postings are convoluted and difficult to understand but there have been people who respectfully engage him on some of the issues that he has brought up. Making comments about his socio-economic status and/or his home life and/or his employment status amounts to little more than a worthless personal attack which could be perceived as unethical and illegal, as someone has pointed out. A person not quite as noteworthy as Mill and/or Hobbs once said, "All great truths began as blasphemes" and I think that statement sums up the argument concerning how we should treat these "fools" and their and their non-mainstream ideas. Additionally, one might consider that violence, being the last resort of the incompetent, could be employed through the public arm of the law if you do as you seem to be suggesting you might, by reporting Steve and his “alleged” wrongful activities to the authorities. I would suggest that the most appropriate philosophical stance would be Kantian because we have a duty to let the Steves' have their say so we might establish our own ideological solidity.
: : Attempting to respectfully serve Liberty,
: : J.M.
: :
: : : J.M.
: : : If you are that well read I am sure you know that John Stuart Mill had a complete nervous and mental breakdown before he was thirty. I have no intention of going out the same way; reading Dr. Steve's disertation. Hobbs on the other hand pointed out that life is short, brutal and vicious. Why suffer fools and exacerbate the agony? I have had eight private emails all marked well done, excelent or words to that effect. Steve has habitually abused this chat group by using it to vent his personal frustrations and bizzar political points of view. He has insulted ever Canadian and made unexceptabe personal attacks that are clearly liabelous. There is a time when turning the channel is no longer appropriate, and calling the FCC or the CRTC and to get something done about the programming is. Enough is enough.
: : : Scott
: : : Scott
: : : : Scott,
: : : : Are you unaware of the philosophy of freedom loving John Stuart Mill who maintains that publishing bad philosophy only strengthens our positions by juxtaposing the two side by side? What kind of censor would propose the elimination of this juxtaposition? Please exercise your freedom to "turn the channel" and let those with "different" philosophies exercise their freedom.
: : : : Respectfully,
: : : : J.M.
: : : : : Steve, just as a sugestion, do you think if you knocked off your habitual babbling and spent some time looking for work you might actually be able to move out of your parents garage in Columbus and do something the rest of society might regard as making a relevant contribution? You are so far off the topic for what this page was set up for it is no longer amusing.
: : : : : Please go away and don't come back.
: : : : :
: : : : : : When a civilian can go out and capture another vessel?
: : : : : : Are we in the military emergency venue?
: : : : : : Is the artificial entity called "Crown" in a military mode?
: : : : : : Can the Crown request, under perjury of oath and affidavit, the Canadian Navy, or a Para-military Group, to sease a private vessel? or a military vessel?
: : : : : : Can the Crown lisence privatiers (local civil authorities like police or forest service rangers) to go out and "secure" other private vessel/boats in high seas under the debt owned under the flag?
: : : : : : If you capture a vessel in high seas (Internationl Navigable Waters), that is called an act of war.
: : : : : : It is your duty to defend your vessel then with the other people in it, and kill the officers of the privatiers (its the law), to defend your economy, friends, divers, freedom, property and sovereignty?
: : : : : : It is your duty to defend others likewise, when they are being boarded by pirates or privatiers? Did you tell them, when attempted bording: "Boarding DENIED!", or "You may NOT enter?", pursuant, they are required to obey, or face criminal clauses. ("Permission to come aboard" is part of a Triety). No one can violate it, not even a public servant.
: : : : : : Are you responsible in defending your Country and your property?
: : : : : : Are you responsible to help your countrymen maintain their freedom, peace, at the cost of your own peril? How can you help to set the record straight?
: : : : : : What is your alternative or duty, when privatiers are flexing their muscles, organizing in masse, and telling you, they are going to rape you?
: : : : : : What is a Aggrieved Party, and are they entitled to resort to a remedy?
: : : : : : Has the artificial entity "Crown" filed "genuine Oath of Office" and "Affidavit", that they want to do this? Was the principle "statutory person" name spelled correctly, publicized, and authorized by a domestic or foreign government to include monetary accountability by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations pursuant to a fault, brouth on by the Aggreved Party? See Acts, Sec's 1-205 and 2-208.
: : : : : : Is the privatiers required to observe Article 34 (1) and (2), and Article 88 & 89, of the General Provisions?
: : : : : : If the Aggreved Party claims Article 38 for use for international United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, thereafter may suffer corporal punishment, pursuant to Article 73, can directly suit the "Crown" for damages?
: : : : : : Denunciation procedures by Art. 317.
: : : : : : Amendments pursuant to 306, 307, 320.
: : : : : : Implied consent 252, and 256 = "All states, irrespective of their geographical location, and competent international organizations, they have the right, in conformity with the provisions of Part XI, to conduct marine scientific research in the Area. (The word "have the right" is absolute).
: : : : : : Scuba divers, don't be deceived by the privatier arch so named before, for you have a Mandate from the Treaties of the United Nations to conduct diving marine research, yes you do, same as the arch, but without imposing extortion or impounding schemes, fraud, or meal ticket scams, and you are standing on the same footing, on a level field. No more no less. And he is a public sevant, and as such, he answers to you, and to your questions, or will be handeled by complaint by Affidavit for criminal mischief. And so, every archaeologist, herein after will be handled this same way.
: : : : : : *
: : : : : : *
: : : : : : Now. Let me tell you what I'm doing.
: : : : : : We have a group of scuba divers, some legal minded retired attorneys, filed and paid the filling fee, a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act lawsuit Monday against nine Superior Court judges, and one elsewhere, charging the jurists are destroying his cases in a conspiracy to drive one of the lawyers out of his practice.
: : : : : : against: Superior Court judge Ronald Bauer
: : : : : : Randell Kline
: : : : : : Francisco Firmat
: : : : : : David Chaffee
: : : : : : John Watson
: : : : : : Robert Monarch
: : : : : : Thomas Thrasher
: : : : : : Fredirick Horn
: : : : : : and Superior Court Judge Gary Tranbarger.
: : : : : : ....each one count of violations RICO and one count of violating civil rights.
: : : : : : ....acted as an 'enterprise' against lawyer-diver, where 'interstate, foreign commerce, by virtue of the positions held whereby decisions made provide a benefit, revenue or income to parties involved in litigation appearing before them', the suit says.
: : : : : : ....used his position as 'an offensive weapon to vindicate personal objectives...'
: : : : : : ....asking $35 million in actual damages in addition to treble damages against each defendant.
: : : : : : ....the initiative, would eliminate immunity from civil liability of state judges, magistrates, commissioners, arbitrators and judicial mediators in deliberate violations of the law. When further developed, it would establish a three 25-member special grand juries with the power to indict, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct, according to a draft of the initiative.
: : : : : : 'The acts of [the judges] ... constitute repeated and continuing conduct that was neither isolated nor sporadic, but that involved a callous disregard for the law that has evolved gradually over the years, in the complaint.
: : : : : : And steve is complaining.