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.


Will Usenet prevent accidents in the future? Probably not. But deciding
not to talk about unfortunate events which have occurred because you might
be seen as imposing some form of judgement on the participants will
*definitely* not prevent future accidents. You can't discuss events like
this without imposing some form of "judgement" on those who are involved.
You criticize those who find fault with the guide in this case for passing
judgement. Yet riverman above finds no real fault with the guide, and
that's a judgement as well. Do you find fault with his assessment as well?

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.

Again, you criticize take the known facts and pass a negative judgement; do
you feel the same about those who take those same facts and find no fault at
all? You seem to be coming down solely on those who find fault based on the
known information, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have
to criticize both those who pass a negative judgement (like Brian) and also
those who pass a positive judgement (like riverman). I guess my main point
is that I understand your disagreement as you've stated it, but I find your
means of arguing your point to be needlessly confrontational. Just my
opinion, however.

I also wonder where you came to the conclusion that those who are
"nattering" on about safety aren't out saving lives? I would be willing to
bet that many of the people who have expressed criticism have found
themselves in a rescue situation and have strong feelings about these
situations as a result. And it's hard to do something about a situation in
Florida if you happened to be in California when it happened; I have no
doubt that most of those you've attacked for offering their opinions would
have done everything in their power to help had they been there.


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.


I don't buy this. You say "could this particular venture have been made
safer? Of course." Well... isn't that the point? Nobody is saying that
water safety can be made foolproof. From your quote, even you obviously see
that the trip could have been safer, so my question is- why wasn't it?
Everybody appears to be in agreement that it could have been, so why wasn't
it? Not to speak for others, but I think that's what folks are saying. And
I don't get the lawn example. Nobody's trying to say that kayaking is or
should be risk free.



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.


Of course there are a myriad of possibilities. And many of the sources of
problems you cite above are probably impossible to deal with. But it
appears that some other problems *were* possible to deal with. Even you say
that there can be little doubt that the guide made an error. Which is
pretty much the judgement of everybody else, and the judgement which you
seem to be harshing on them for.


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 don't know if kayaking is more dangerous than the other activities you
mention, but I would argue that the dangers are much less obvious.


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.


Look, God knows that I'm not trying to start a flame war with you, so
there's no cause to be nasty. I wasn't assuming you're part of some cover
up. All I was saying is that I thought you were unduly harsh towards others
who held a viewpoint other than your own, and it made me rethink the whole
thing. And I found that I disagreed with you. Nothing personal.


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.


I guess I didn't see this in any of the responses. I saw several people
point out that unnecessary errors were made that resulted in loss of life,
and that the guides decisions would not have been their own. What's wrong
with that? Don't you ever second guess the actions of others? That's just
human nature, I would say. Nobody here is claiming to be a superhero, as
far as I can see.