"Franklin" wrote in message
...

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.

Probably so, as a matter of fact. This is a pretty weak beginning. Let's
see where it leads, shall we?

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.

Should you encounter anyone who feels these matters should not be discussed,
kindly refer them to me. I am confident that I can convince them (or those
among them who are interested in discussion.....and at least marginally
qualified to discuss anything) that they should reconsider. As for the rest
of that sentence, rather than pass judgement on it, I will simply decline to
discuss it.

You can't discuss events like
this without imposing some form of "judgement" on those who are involved.

Horse****.

You criticize those who find fault with the guide in this case for passing
judgement.

Not all.

Yet riverman above finds no real fault with the guide, and
that's a judgement as well.

See what I mean?

Do you find fault with his assessment as well?

None whatsoever.....for a number of reasons.

In the first place, having corresponded with riverman for a couple of years
on another newsgroup, I happen to know that he is a highly experienced and
formerly, if not currently, professional watersports guide with a great deal
of experience in precisely the sort of activity that in this instance
resulted in the reason for this thread. As a result of this correspondence,
and despite numerous and not always friendly disagreements with him on
numerous other matters (some trivial and others not at all so), I have
acquired a pretty fair respect for his expertise and his judgement in
matters highly and specifically germane to the subject at hand.

Secondly, his contributions to this thread so far have been not only closely
reasoned but also eminently reasonable. That they are corroborated by his
own not inconseqential experience gives them added weight.

Third, and by no means least important, even an embarrassingly close
examination of riverman's position, as stated, will reveal no hint of lynch
mob mentality. His judgements in this instance (whatever anyone may think
of them) will not result in the premature and quite possibly unjustified
destruction of the life of anyone who may not be guilty of anything more
than bad luck, nor (and this is critically important) of the lives of such
an unlucky individual's family members.

There's more (and yeah, I really don't mind if you try me), but that will
suffice for now.

On the other hand, with the single exception of yourself, no one with whom
I've taken exception on this matter has yet displayed any hint of
qualifications, reason, reasonableness, or anything else but a propensity to
leap to whatever conclusion he (one would hope to believe foolishly......but
here you are) thinks will improve his standing among others in this group.

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?

Known facts? Take another look at the facts presented by those I have
(mildly, thus far) admonished. Beyond that, see above.

You seem to be coming down solely on those who find fault based on the
known information,

Well, things aren't always what they seem. I am, in fact, "coming down" on
those who wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit them on the ass, and
who have no interest in or respect for truth, fairness, reason.......or
simple basic humanity.

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).

Not only unsubstantiated, but a stupid assertion on the face of it.
Intellectual honesty doesn't demand anything of the sort. As a matter of
fact, equating such an assertion with inellectual honesty flies in the face
of good sense and belies a claim to either on the part of whatever ass might
make it.

I guess my main point
is that I understand your disagreement as you've stated it,

I beg to differ on two fronts. You have yet to make a point worth anything
more than summary dismissal (thus rendering the very idea of a "main" point
moot.....at best), and you've shown no sign of understanding anything I've
said.

but I find your
means of arguing your point to be needlessly confrontational.

Need is a hard thing to pin down. How many calories do you 'NEED" to ingest
in a day? And if you think THIS is confrontational......well, you ain't
seen nothin' yet, Sparky.

Just my opinion, however.

Well, we are agreed on that much.


I also wonder where you came to the conclusion that those who are
"nattering" on about safety aren't out saving lives?

I assumed that anyone who was typing inane bombast on a Usenet newsgroup was
probably not simultaneously engaged in sundry heroic endeavors out in the
Gulf of Mexico. Unjustifed, perhaps, but I'll stand by that assumption
until informed otherwise.

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.

Ah, a gambling man! I trust you will not take it amiss if I decline any
offers you might make in the future to guide any young person I know on open
water adventures.

And it's hard to do something about a situation in
Florida if you happened to be in California when it happened;

Ya know, that sounds a lot like something I might say. Oddly enough, it
sounds a LOT like something I DID say.

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.

So would Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and a host of others. What a peculiar
coincidence that NONE of them was available, huh?

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.

It wasn't for sale. It was given away, gratis.

You say "could this particular venture have been made
safer? Of course." Well... isn't that the point?

Well, it's "A" point. And I must say that I take some pride not only in
having made one, but also in the fact that at least one person of manifestly
diminished capacity noticed.

Nobody is saying that water safety can be made foolproof.

No?

From your quote, even you obviously see
that the trip could have been safer,

Perceptive.......I'd wondered if anyone would notice that.

so my question is- why wasn't it?

Um.......cuz nobody could afford outriggers, flak jackets, kevlar helmets, a
United States Coast Guard escort, atropine ampules, morphine ampules, signal
flares, shark repellant, splints, contraceptives, nylon stockings, a 1911
model Colt .45 autoloaders, self inflating rubber rafts, food caches,
reflecting mirrors, LORAN gear, GPS gear, sattelite phones, Hershey's
chocolate bars, 3 miles of two inch Samson cord, parachute cord, assorted
bandages, magnesium blocks, stainless steel knives (with etched inch
markings on the serrated backside to measure legal abalone), dye markers,
suture kits, smoke grenades, epinephrine ampules, block and tackle, scuba
gear, parasails, a small hatchet, hemostats, rongeurs, a hotline to CSI, a
Leatherman multi-tool, c-rats, MREs, trade beads, a porta-potty,
biodegradble toilet paper, instant coffee, a sun shower, a space blanket,
claymores, land mines, light artillery, armored personnel carriers, on call
air cover, and granola bars?

Everybody appears to be in agreement that it could have been, so why
wasn't
it?

Actually, it was. Has ANYBODY stopped congratulating themselves on their
own heroism and perspicacity long enough to consider the fact that FOUR
people didn't die?

Not to speak for others, but I think that's what folks are saying.

Now, before we go any further, just take a moment to go back and look at
that sentence. Do you see what we're up against here?

And
I don't get the lawn example. Nobody's trying to say that kayaking is or
should be risk free.

You're absolutely right. You don't get the lawn example.

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.

Well, that's one possibility.

And many of the sources of
problems you cite above are probably impossible to deal with.

O.k.......then let's don't.

But it
appears that some other problems *were* possible to deal with.

That darned past tense! One of these days I was definitely going to do
something about that. I mean it! Just watch and saw if I didn't!

Even you say
that there can be little doubt that the guide made an error.

That was based on the assumption that he is human. I make no guarantees.

Which is
pretty much the judgement of everybody else, and the judgement which you
seem to be harshing on them for.

See, and we were doing so well! And then you have to go and say something
really stupid!

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.

Yeah, getting hit by a bus is pretty subtle.

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,

Good thing. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I'm ready!

so there's no cause to be nasty.

Cause? We don't need no steenking cause!

I wasn't assuming you're part of some cover up.

Too bad. That would have been your first reasonable assumption thus far.

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.

Well, you're easily moved......that's what we like about you.

And I found that I disagreed with you.

Would you be surprised to learn that you ain't gettin' no cherry?

Nothing personal.

Tut tut.....think nothing of it.

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 guess I agree......you show no sign of doing so.

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?

Aside from the fact that it's entirely wrong, misses the point, is a crass
and unmistakable apologia, is self-serving, pig headed, willfully ignorant
and fundamentally inhumane?.........nothing that I can see.

Don't you ever second guess the actions of others?

I've been thinking about giving that a try. Is there a "...For The Complete
Dummy" guide?

That's just human nature, I would say.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you just did. Homicide, if history is
any guide, is just human nature too. And then, there's incest, thievery,
infanticide, pedophilia, adultery, apostasy, heresy, false witness, pride,
gluttony, sloth, envy......well, you know.

Nobody here is claiming to be a superhero, as
far as I can see.

These days you can get a pretty decent pair of binoculars at a decent price
at most sporting goods stores, discount chains (ala Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.)
and many other fine local retail establishments.....watch your local paper
for flyers.

Wolfgang