"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote:

"RkyMtnHootOwl" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote:

in article , RkyMtnHootOwl
at
wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM:

snip
I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following
link:

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/s...12300973c.html

in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article
that started this post. Two points primairly,

1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be
wearing life jackets, police said.

So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean
without
them? Idiots.

Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy

Maybe? MAYBE?

You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two
dead
people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on
the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!?


First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person!

Fine.

You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two dead
people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on
the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!?

Secondly, yeah I think it is a terrible policy to guide people on the
ocean, without PFD's, not at you say, " not a bad policy". Which I
will read between the lines of your blather, and understand that you
think it is a bad policy, which I have no problem agreeing with you
on. So!

You said it is "maybe a bad policy" and now you agree that it is a bad
policy. This is good. It is the first sensible thing I have seen from you in
some time. Maybe ever!

I would not choose to operate my guiding company under this policy,
but apparently they did, but then it is not my business to tell them
how to run their business.

So you were uncomortable commenting on this policy, but had no problem
speculating about the lives of the people in the accident. Fascinating!

Being a Good liberal

Er. What makes me a "liberal" ??!?

I expect that you
think that is what the government is for, To tell private business
owners how to run their business!

Um. Well. It is, I believe, a legitimate role of government to regulate
business activities, and totally unregulated business activities would
result in some rather nasty things happening. I am not aware that
conservatives are in favour of removing all government regulation. So it is
a matter of degree.

I would be comfortable with a government regulation requiring all operators
of ocean kayaking tours to have the wearing of PFDs as a mandatory activity.
I don't think that makes me a "liberal" (not that there's anything wrong
with that!). Do you? Why?

but then the guidees are
still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and
company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept
responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash
them over the head to make them put their PFD's on.

I see. So if you were a guide, and two paddlers wanted to go out on the
ocean with you but not wear PFD's, you wouldn't tell them "PFD's on, or
forget it!"

Man, you really are a first class idiot.

I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain
individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain
protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout.
That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time
there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the
commander position immediately.

So? You obviously did the right thing in that situation. Why are you being
such an arse in discussing a similarly obvious scenario as this one?

Go figure, I was doing something to protect their children, and they
wanted to make my life - Hell! I finally decided that I did not need
the headache, so the boys had no camping experience, stayed home with
the parents! The parents then complained because the scout program was
not meeting the needs of the boys, and it was my fault because I had
quit. Makes complete sense to me, NOT!

It's nothing unusual, although unfortunate for all concerned.

But evidently the guide did not feel compeled to operate similarly. Is
there complicity on the guides part for the death of the kayaker,
possibly! Will the liability waiver stand up in court, I expect we
will find out.

I hope it doesn't.

2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out
of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield

So?

Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........!
See below!

Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the
water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and
also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf.

Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master
Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would
have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with
other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was
married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter
what the actual relationship was.

Are you in a time warp?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

It has to do with your bizarre and archaic suggestion that a man and a
woman
cannot go paddling together.

I did not say that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together, and
at the same time maintain a wholly upright relationship. This couple
may have been totally upright! But they also could have been totally
distracted, which was the suggestion that this could have been a
contributing factor in the bad decisions that led to a tradgedy.

You have no evidence to support any of your speculations. You are smearing
people just for the fun of it?

No I am not in a time warp. I also know that it is best to avoid the
appearance of compromise!

Sounds very cowardly. I am not afraid to go paddling with a female.

The military is as much concerned
with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on
the military.

The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things
than
right or wrong.

Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of
Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort
of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He
might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract!

Did he break the contract? What are you talking about? And what does it
have
to do with their deaths?

I don't know, you don't know, but I am certain that there will be an
investigation, so it will be interesting to find out!

The difference is, you are speculating about things when there is no
evidence at all to support it. You are just smearing people for the fun of
it, making light of a tragic situation for no reason other than your own
amusement it would seem.

BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

It has to do with your strange concern for military appearances.

I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass!

Who gives a ****?

He should have been concerned with how it appeared to
the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on
this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions.

Bull****. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus
far
don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while
paddling.

I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and
developed some story line beyond the facts as stated.

You have.

I never went beyond the facts as stated! If there is any taint, it
only points out the necessity to avoid the appearance of evil!

Uh. No. The fact that some asshole like yourself is willing to label any
unmarried man and woman who go paddling together as some sort of sexual
deviants is not the problem of the two people, it is the problem of the
Tinkernhootowl!

The facts as
stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on.

What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts.

If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who
cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts!

What are the relevant facts?

The
appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was
nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature.

What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or
otherwise)
about going paddling.

No, but there is about fraternizing!

And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing."

And if they had not been in the military, and out paddling, there is
never the less the possibility of the distraction of opposites
attracting, which still could have been an issue.

It could also have been a UFO. What is the point of this speculation, other
than to smear these people and make light of a tragedy?

All I am suggesting
is the possibility of contributing issues. If there had not been the
possibility of these contributing issues, then you would have not
responded to the enuendo. That you responded to the enuendo, proves
that you understand that they may have been contributing issues!

Ridiculous. I have suggested many times that you are an asshole. You
responded. I guess that means you understand that you are an asshole!

Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can
learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and
unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we
wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf.

What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out,
whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was
boning
this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so,
I
have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball
bat?
If not, what the hell are you trying to say?

As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other,
from any of the news articles!

Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether
someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is
one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour.

Is that your professional diagnosis?

No, I'm just following the facts! In the way that you define "facts."

To draw any conclusionas you desire
along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions
regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the
scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to
indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned
outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the
fraternizing!

Utter bull****. There are no facts whatsoever to support this.

as you say, "Bull ****!!"

What are the facts to support it?

I know better, I know I'll
never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out
of
you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my
slander, and leave.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well
intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me.
snip
And as you ably
pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am
concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG.

Life is about each moment of breath,
Living, about each breathless moment!

Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT

and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0

at

2 WW kayaks,
'73 Folbot Super,
pre '60 Klepper AEII
77 Hobie Cat 16

To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message!

Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl!

I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO

And yet, you are worse than ever.

And now again I feel so much better!! Cleansed!!! Thank you for the
opportunity to be clear headed, and unencumbered as I speak the truth!

RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

And yet, you are worse than ever.