"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:12:12 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:53:25 -0500, KMAN wrote:
in article , RkyMtnHootOwl
at
wrote on 12/8/05 4:43 PM:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:02:35 -0500, KMAN wrote:
"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message
...
snip
I already told you I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it a
secret? If you know what you meant, why won't you explain it?
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
I took a guess in a different post that you thought they were trying to have
sex on the bow of a kayak and fell in, or something. Sounds ridiculous,
obviously, but I really have no idea what you are getting at. So that's my
guess. Now can you reveal the secret?
snip
Not to disparage the dead, but consider this, two people together, a
49 year old guy with all his attributes, and a 26 year old gal with
all her uh "attributes"
What the christ is that supposed to mean?
[In case this is unclear, I am asking you to explain what you mean by
"attributes"]
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
I have no guess on this one. Why is it a secret?
makes for a pretty stupid stew
Please explain. Why does a 49 year old guy and a 26 year old gal make for
a
stupider stew than, say, a 22 year old guy and a 30 year old gal?
[In case this is unclear, I am asking you to explain what the ages have
to
do with it]
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
Again, I really have no guess. Seems to me, in general, a 22 year old is
going to be less risk-averse than a 49 year old. So, I don't know. Why is it
a secret?
Considering that he was married, the disparity of age, probable
difference
in
rank, a long way from home, I expect they may have had other things on
their minds.
What the christ are you talking about?
[In case this is unclear, I am asking you to explain what the guy's
marital
status and the "disparity of age" between the two paddlers has to do with
their deaths. Further, what do you mean by "probable difference in
rank."]
At least you are beginning to deal with the details of what I said
I have all along.
and your questions become more specific.
Only because you continue to dodge any and all efforts are giving specifics
of your own.
So I see no hinderance for
you because, you're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
And so it continues.
I did not find a question in this so I snipped to save bandwidth.
snip
I don't know what you mean, that's why I am asking. Is it a secret? If
you
know what you meant, why not simply explain it?
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
I really have no idea. If you intend to keep it a secret, just say so.
You have no clue. What is known is that they were novices, they had a
guide,
they wore no PFDs, they went to a place where they should not have
been.
Yeah, I also have learned that there is usually alot more to the story
than what we have been told! So I try to read between the lines, which
is the point about a discussion group like this!
Fine. But what the christ is it you are reading, and what are the lines?
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
I really have no idea. If you intend to keep it a secret, just say so.
None of us were there
to be making a truely informed statement, and most don't actually know
the people involved. So most all that is said is conjecture, even what
you have just stated! Did the article say they were novices? How did
you determine they were novices?
The article said so.
Now you are reading between the lines, no where in the article was it
stated that these two were novices. The word was not even used, unless
you are reading somewhere else than the posted link. So obviously you
are able, so take a SWAG at what I am writing about!
I'll try to find the reference for you.
snip
I went backcountry skiing by myself,...
snip
What does this have to do with a couple going kayaking with a guide?
Nothing
OK. This is progress. So far, of all your comments about this tragedy,
you've made a number of cryptic comments which you have refused to
explain,
and have admitted that your supposed relevant "situation" is in fact
irrelevant.
I don't recall that I admitted such a thing! How you do snip to your
cryptic convinence! Smart boy!
You mean you think the fact that you went skiing by yourself and got lost
does bear some relevance to the tragedy that is the topic of this thread.
Sigh. I guess this is part of your brilliant point that human beings do
stupid things sometimes?
it has to do with the original question, of why people do
stupid things! In this story a couple is kayaking, in mine, I did
stupid things. Similarity may stop there, but we can look at
ourselves, and usually find where we have also done stupid things.
Have you any stupid human stunts to your credit?
Yes, of course. For example, I really thought it was possible you might
be
less of an asshole in talking about this tragedy.
Such childish language from someone so smart and well educated. I
guess well bred does not necessarily come in the package?
snip
The word is perfectly accurate. Calling you contemptible and detestable
would carry the same meaning, but most people do better with "asshole" and
to me it does a better job of describing your behaviour.
I don't know what you are talking about, that's why I asked. Is it a
secret?
If you know what it is you are talking about, why not simply explain it?
Because, You're so smart, I want you to take a SWAG.
I really have no idea. If you intend to keep it a secret, just say so.
Although I will
admit, that at 49, he was not that young, but obviously still able to
make some stupid decisions!
That's extremely insightful (not).
Some more deep insight on your part, not!
snip
Apparently I am naïve because I don't know what you are talking about. If
it
is not a secret, why can't you explain it?
Well you finally admit that you are so naive that you can't figure it
out? Maybe there is something to the perception that Canadians are
naive, humm? But still why don't you take a SWAG!
I really have no idea. If you intend to keep it a secret, just say so.
Things are even more obscured now that you are suggesting one's nationality
has something to do with it.
You missed what I was saying. You said you were working at perfecting
being
stupid. I am saying that I think you have done a find job. But I am sure
you
can improve.
On this I am sure you are correct, I can always improve!
For you to demonstrate enhanced stupidity would be a remarkable achievement,
but you show me each and every day you are capable of it!
snip
And yours are brilliant?
Thus far I am simply seeking to have explanations for your comments about
this tragedy.
And I am seeking your SWAG!
I really have no idea. If you intend to keep it a secret, just say so.
You obviously like the word "stupid"! Reminds me of a little kid who
discovers a new word, and uses it in every statement they make for a
day or two, or until they learn a new word! Are you a little child?
What is your new word for today? RkyMtnHootOwl OvO
Now that you have decided to not even attempt to explain your statements,
I
would upgrade you from stupid to pathetic.
Is that your new word? It does have 2 more letters, so I am sure that
must be exciting for you! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO
No.