Mee'n'Mac

"Wrong. If we use the logic of banning driving on the ice then we better be ready to ban BOATS that might also sink and pollute the lake ... "

First let me clear up any misinterpretation. ToW was correct in that I was (very much) being tongue in cheek in my earlier post.
Second your response (above) is pretty much the point I was trying to make, via some hopefully humorous, lampooning of prior posts on cross topics. Far too often I see (and I certainly don't mean just on this forum) people getting emotional about Activity A due to drawbacks X, Y and Z. "Ban A" I hear, it's "stupid, immoral, look at the damages X, Y and Z it causes", etc, etc. Yet when Activity B has demonstrates X, Y and Z there's no outcry. Always makes me think that X, Y and Z aren't the real issues, just justifications. People dislike A and like B and come up with reasoning to support the former. I have no qualms with people disliking certain activities and stating so (even vigorously debating so). I just wish we as homo-sapiens applied a bit more logic to our reasoning, at least when it comes to legislating away certain choices. It's all fine and well to debate the merits of Cherry Garcia vs Chunky Monkey but I would hope nobody take such a debate seriously enough to propose legislation banning Chunky Monkey (Cherry Garcia rules ! at least all intelligent people think so ).
Lastly I was having some fun with the newspaper article on sunken sleds. Seems the writer was working to find every potentially sensational thing to say. The writer in the article "madrasahs" posted was a bit more even handed I thought.