Return-Path: <edscott@shell9.ba.best.com-DeleteThis> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id PAA06960 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cosrel2.hp.com (cosrel2.hp.com [15.88.200.10]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id PAA11145 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by cosrel2.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D2579B for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 May 2000 16:47:48 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14274 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id <B0004484798@mailgate2.apple.com-DeleteThis> for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 08 May 2000 15:43:02 -0700 Received: from [17.197.20.103] (scoted2.apple.com [17.197.20.103]) by scv3.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA07600 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005082243.PAA07600@scv3.apple.com-DeleteThis> Subject: RE: Treasure Island Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:39:05 -0700 x-sender: edscott@shell9.ba.best.com-DeleteThis x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Ed Scott <edscott@best.com-DeleteThis> To: <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: edscott@shell9.ba.best.com-DeleteThis
>As there are now plain old civilian renters there, it's definitely possible
>to get onto the island. However, it's unclear about the windsurfing. I've
>heard rumors it's open. I would have to disagree that keeping low and NOT
>determining the status is the best course of action. I believe that it needs
>to be investigated as it was certainly not permitted 2 summers ago.
Fair enough, but imho, given the overreaching exercised by some
bureacracies (and Willie's apparent 'tude on TI), it's sometimes better
to seek forgiveness afterwards, than permission beforehand. Btw - I also
experienced the same game warden stuff that you did, and I think I sailed
there during the Navy/SF transition period.
-Ed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:12 PDT