"Franklin" wrote in message
...
I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I
really wish
I could understand where you're coming from with this line of
thought. From
your response above and the one you made to Brian, I get the
impression that
you think anyone who believes this was a preventable tragedy is just
being
stupid. Am I correct?

No, you are not. In theory, most accidents are preventable. In
retrospect, one can often identify ways in which they could have been
averted. Even I have little trouble understanding and accepting this.

What I DO have trouble with is the demonstrably stupid notion that
hindsight is 20/20. What is being demonstrated in this thread (as it
is so often, virtually everywhere) is that hindsight is typically as
myopic and astigmatic as is foresight.

Why are you taking shots at these people?? Or are
you saying that anyone who wasn't there should be silent? I don't
buy that
either. Personally, I would rather debate all the issues associated
with a
fatality and possibly learn (or teach) something that would maybe
prevent
something similar from happening in the future, than not say
anything and
tacitly accept the deaths of kids like this as just being part of
the game.

Personally, I generally prefer discussion to debate, but that's a
minor point and I realize that one or the other may be more
appropriate and/or useful depending on circumstances. As to whether
debate on Usenet will prevent similar accidents from happening in the
future.......well, that is debatable. At any rate, I think there is
ample reason to believe that people who hand down a verdict before an
investigation reveals whether any malfeasance or negligence has
occurred are not likely to be much interested in debate or discussion.
Nor are they likely to be of any appreciable use in either.

Moreover, anyone whose expertize in these matters allows him to
correctly diagnose exactly what went wrong in this situation at some
great distance and based solely on preliminary newspaper reports (or,
more likely, a condensation of such reports found on a website.....or
what someone else in a newsgroup said about such a condensation)
would, obviously, have been able to prevent the accident from
happening in the first place. This being the case, one has to wonder
why these savants are nattering on Usenet when they SHOULD be out
saving lives. Further, I thinks it's safe to assume that they were
NOT out saving lives in uncannily similar situations on that
day......otherwise, they'd have told us exactly how they did it,
right? Therefore, they MUST have been free to take the Florida
situation in hand, thus saving two needlessly wasted
lives......um.....unless they had something more important to do,
which I am willing to concede, though I'm having some trouble figuring
out what it may have been.

Tacitly or otherwise, anyone but an abject fool MUST accept the death
of kids like this as part of the game. Any and every activity in or
on water is inherently dangerous. For that matter, life is dangerous.
To be sure, we can devise ways of reducing some of the risks associate
with virtually any activity, but one can go only so far in this
direction without obliterating what makes it worthwhile. Could this
particular venture have been made safer? Of course. Could it have
been made foolproof? Well, water is tricky stuff. I suppose the trip
could have been made on a nice soft lawn, out of the sun, away from
any trees that might fall or a bicycle path off of which some crazed
biker might careen into the crowd.

If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, I have to
agree with
him- the guide, however qualified he might be, appears to have made
an error
which resulted in the death of these children.

If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, it will be
some time before we know it. Given the realities of life on Earth, we
may never know even if made privy to all of the available facts.

Meanwhile, and speaking only for myself, I think there can be little
doubt that the guide made an error. Assuming a reasonable degree of
humanity on his part, he doubtless made more than one. Whether or not
any error or errors on his part contributed to or directly caused the
deaths remain to be seen. Any number of circumstances beyond his
control could have come into play. For example, teenagers are
notoriously fractious. Isn't it at least possible that a couple of
them deliberately hung back from the group for God knows what reason
of their own? And then, when things got ugly, what should a group
leader do? Should he abandon a larger group, who would also need
whatever help he might be able to provide, in favor of a smaller?
Clearly, there are many other possibilites. Just as clearly,
judgement should be held in abeyance until all the facts are known (or
at least as many of them as can be discovered) and have been assessed.

It's one thing to take
risks, and I would agree that to live life insulated from risk is
not a good
thing. But the risks I take in my life are ones that I assume for
myself.
Fourteen year old beginners like this are not in a position to
assume risk
on their own, they are at the mercy of the people who lead them.
And it
sure looks to me like these kids were led wrong.

Leaving aside the fatuous notion that what anything looks like to
anyone (and, in particular, to anyone who gets his information from
speculation on a Usenet newsgroup) this early is of any earthly use,
the question of responsibility isn't quite as clear and simple as you
suppose either. Presumably, in this day and age, the parents of all
the minor participants were required to give written consent.
Moreover, if fourteen year olds are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, then how is it that every state in the U.S. allows them
to ride bicycles in traffic or engage in myriad other dangerous
activities unsupervised? Is kayaking inherently more dangerous than
skiing, martial arts or skateboarding?

I seriously doubt that in
the last moments of their lives they were thinking thoughts like
"well, I
took a risk and now I'm going to die, but I leave this life happy,
knowing I
lived life to the fullest!" They were probably terrified because
they never
dreamed that a simple paddle on the water could end up killing them.

Nothing to argue with there. But then, there's nothing much there.
One could say the same of adults. In either case it's not much of a
revelation....nor is it germane or helpful.

Unless
I'm really missing something, these kids were depending on the guide
to
impart to them the risks they were assuming and to protect them, and
he let
them down.

Well, maybe you're missing something. Maybe we should sit back for a
while and see if any facts emerge.

To be honest, I wasn't really bothered by this event when I read the
initial
post, but your responses in the vein above have convinced me that
there
*was* negligence.

This position makes perfect sense if one assumes that I'm part of some
sort of cover-up conspiracy. Otherwise, it suggests you need a
refresher on what constitutes evidence.

The real tragedy in this case isn't the deaths of two innocent youths.
That's sad, and it was in all likelihood preventable, but that can be
said of any accident, if only.........

The real tragedy is that there is an endless supply of cretins ever
ready to destroy yet more lives in a futile attempt to convince the
world (and thus perhaps even themselves) that they would have done
things differently and inevitably have saved the day......as any good
superhero should.

Wolfgang
who never would have guessed that his contributions here could have a
retroactive effect on events occurring elsewhere and days earlier.