"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:j38Vd.38241$ya6.25850@trndny01...
That was kind of my take on it...

And many would agree.

I beg to differ. Reduce all of life's risks to the bare
minimum and you end up with a generation of children who grow
up to live their lives on Usenet.

Wolfgang
who would rather see them drown.

wow

Hey, they could grow up to be you.
===============
which only to a psychopath would think is worse than dead...
Thanks for showing how you would treat those that disagree with
you...




Wolfgang

"rick" wrote in message
news

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Hey, they could grow up to be you.
===============
which only to a psychopath would think is worse than dead...
Thanks for showing how you would treat those that disagree with
you...

To the best of my admittedly imperfect recollection, I have never
actually killed anyone who disagreed with me. Um.....family history
is another matter entirely, but that would take us deeper into the old
nature versus nurture conundrum than I care to delve at the moment. I
can think of only one instance in which someone who frequently
disagreed with me subsequently died, an unfortunate circumstance in
which, I hasten to remind the reader, I was never formally indicted.
I despair of my ability to make you understand and fully appreciate
how comforting it is to know that when my turn comes, I will be
mourned by such a paragon of logical precision, lexical dexterity and
deep seated humanity as your own inestimable self.

Wolfgang
who, it should not be necessary to add, will decline all offers to
join any lynch mob planning to pay a visit to the leaders of the
ill-fated expedition alluded to in this thread, with whom, when all is
said and done, he probably disagrees about some things.

I wrote this some four years ago but nowt has changed my attitude

35 years ago I was a school kid just getting involved in kayaking, hill
walking and climbing through the Scouts and the Duke Of Edinburgh Award
scheme. I remember reading Woodrow Wyatt - 'the voice of reason'
editorial column in the Daily Mirror when he was commenting on another
of those "Group of Kids Get Lost on the Mountain" epics. (It took the
Mountain Rescue services two days to find the group and when they did
the group was fine; they had pitched camp and waited for the weather to
improve before descending back down off the Glyders). Mr Wyatt was
asking the question 'Why were these 17-18 year olds up the mountain in
the first place - surely they should be picking up more useful life
skills like attracting a barmaid's eye in a crowded pub'. A flippant
example but the point was well made - I remember it all these years
later, but 35 years on the outdoor industry still has not managed answer
the point to the media and general public. The media is still outraged
when there is a tragedy on the mountains or drowning in the lakes or
sea. The media still wants to know why people are up a creek without a
paddle or up the mountain in the rain.

Around the same time my brother was following me and starting
his kayaking career. He capsized and swam down the River Dee in
Llangollen. Separated from his boat he ended up on the island, as many
have done before and since, just above the bridge. Whilst standing
marooned on this damp bit of rock a parent of one of the other boys
shouted down to him that he 'would have to swim for it' Unfortunately
this was overheard by a passing journalist and after gathering a few
further facts the story appeared in the Shrewsbury Chronicle under the
headline 'BOY AGED 14 SWIMS TO SAFETY' The following day my mother,
blissfully unaware of all this, was startled to be greeted by the
butcher with the 'Mrs Manby I am so glad to hear your son is all right!'
After reading the story she had to confess to having watched her sons do
this or similar on many occasions. The butcher and other customers were
amazed that our parents continued to allow us to partake in these
foolhardy pursuits. And despite the intervening years the general
public's attitude has not changed.

The Outdoor industry has failed to justify its existence to the
general public and failed to answer the media's questioning.

For many years the outdoor industry's answer has been 'personal
development' or in days gone by 'character building'. But this is in
doubt now and all the anecdotal stories of how bad kids have been turned
into good kids by going on a hike in the hills appear to be only
anecdotal - the Lanarkshire survey by Edinburgh University shows that
the kids with high self esteem keep their high self esteem and those
with low self esteem show no real improvement. Management training
after flirting with the outdoors as a tool for teaching delegation,
trust and other such qualities decided that there was no point in
putting managers into an uncomfortable environment to challenge their
preconceived notions when this can be done far better using other tools.

I am not arguing that taking people out into the outdoors is bad
- many people love it. I am arguing that the reasoning behind the
industry is faulty.

When Lyme bay happened the outdoor industry was so far down the
road of mutual back slapping and complacency that it had to abdicate all
responsibility for regulating itself and subjugate itself to 'centre
accreditation'. The result was a rush for paper qualifications and the
loss of many experienced and good but unqualified instructors. This
abdication of responsibility extended to centre managers looking for
qualifications over experience despite this NOT being a legal
requirement. People I know who run outdoor centres would rather employ
experience over qualification any day but, because of the implied or
assumed legal liability, they feel they cannot afford to take this risk!
These centre managers now have to live with questionable appointments;
they know that accidents will happen in the hills and on the lakes and
on the rocks but they have to be able to show that the correct pieces of
paper are in place when the questions have to be answered after an
accident. However a more experienced less qualified instructor might
have had the intuition to have foreseen and prevented the accident. And
then the outdoor industry has the gall to talk about risk management!
But this rant of mine about the need for qualifications is a side issue;
it has nothing to do with the more important matter - the demise of the
moral soul of the spirit of adventure that the enjoyment of the outdoors
requires.

It would seem that everything that the outdoor industry purports
to instil in its customers: responsibility, trust, self esteem, decision
making, and the like it has failed to learn itself.

The guy who runs Easy Jet said, referring to an accident on one of his
father's ships, 'if you think safety is expensive you should try an
accident'. The accident at Lyme Bay was expensive: we, the people who
love the outdoors, paid for it with some of the soul of the adventure we
all love and know to be the reason for outdoor adventure. We retreated
into symposia and conferences, we told each other we were doing things
right, we were tightening up on procedures, we were removing the
anomalies in some of the more irritating directives inflicted on our
industry, we were introducing 'risk assessment forms'. What we were
doing was watching our backs. Meanwhile in the pubs and bars we (both
instructors and individuals) carried on recounting stories of epics had
and close calls avoided and all the other reasons why going out in to
the outdoors is enjoyable. Everyone who works in the industry knows why
the outdoors is so enjoyable but sold out to the myth of risk-free
adventure.

The industry is not prepared to stand up and shout 'mea culpa! An
accident happened; it was worth it'. It was worth it because of the
hundreds of other people who discovered the surge of adrenaline when
running a rapid, it was worth it because of the thousands who feel the
sense of achievement when they make their first summit, it was worth it
because of the many many people who got that lift in the heart when they
saw for the first time a cloud inversion with the other mountain peaks
sticking up like islands in the sky, it was worth it because of those
who felt the rush of relief when they reached the jug-handle hold after
a forty foot lead, it was worth it because of the few cripples who
discovered that by getting in a kayak or canoe they could cease to be a
person with a disability, it was worth it for the sense of smugness that
the outdoor industry can take from giving these people that smile on
their faces'.

The industry must get away from pointing the finger of blame at other
centres. It must stop looking at accidents and pointing out that what
caused the accident would never happen here we must start looking at the
reasons behind the causes of accidents and share the knowledge. Every
centre will have had near misses but these are all not shared with the
rest of the industry because of the ridicule that it will result in. A
blame culture in an industry that has external risks is an unhealthy
culture as it is counter to improving safety.

In message . net, rick
writes

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:j38Vd.38241$ya6.25850@trndny01...
That was kind of my take on it...

And many would agree.

I beg to differ. Reduce all of life's risks to the bare
minimum and you end up with a generation of children who grow
up to live their lives on Usenet.

Wolfgang
who would rather see them drown.

wow






--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

"rick" wrote in message
news

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:j38Vd.38241$ya6.25850@trndny01...
That was kind of my take on it...

And many would agree.

I beg to differ. Reduce all of life's risks to the bare minimum and
you end up with a generation of children who grow up to live their
lives on Usenet.

Wolfgang
who would rather see them drown.

wow

Hey, they could grow up to be you.
===============
which only to a psychopath would think is worse than dead...
Thanks for showing how you would treat those that disagree with you...


Easy, Rick. You and Wolfie are arguing on the same side here. His point was
that IF we reduced all of life's risks the bare minimum, we would end up
with a bunch of fat lazy kids who spend their life on Usenet. This is so
distasteful that he would rather see them do outdoorsy things, take risks,
and sometimes potentially drown. I believe we are in agreement that its
better to take risks (possibly fatal) to hide from them. I know I agree with
that.

When he said "hey they could grow up to be you", he said that in a neutral
was just to bait you. You took it as a condescention, but he meant it as a
veiled compliment: you're a risk taker....they could grow up to be like you.
Your response was precisely the type of misinterpretation that he was hoping
for.

He's a master at this kind of neutral statement that can be taken two ways.
Its fun to watch, if youre not the target.

--riverman
(who KNOWS he's gonna get his comeuppance for this....)

"riverman" wrote in message
...

...He's a master...

snipped remainder of embarrassingly effusive flattery

As you well know, I could use the services of a full time publicist. I
couldn't pay much......at least for the time being......but it would be a
lot more exciting than that tedious little stint you did down in Africa.

Whattya say?

Wolfgang
incoming!

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

...He's a master...

snipped remainder of embarrassingly effusive flattery

Effusive, or efflusive?


As you well know, I could use the services of a full time publicist. I
couldn't pay much......at least for the time being......but it would be a
lot more exciting than that tedious little stint you did down in Africa.

Whattya say?


Sure. You know I'm your biggest fan.
:-)

Wolfgang
incoming!

Uh oh. Shoulda listened to my lawyer. But still, Wolfie, play nice with your
new friends.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

Uh oh. Shoulda listened to my lawyer.

There's a natural hierarchy to these things. Always listen to your plumber
and your electrician first.....then your accountant.....then your
doctor......and then your lawyer.

But still, Wolfie, play nice with your new friends.

The Burnsian postulate is always uppermost in my mind.

Wolfgang

Dave Manby wrote:
I wrote this some four years ago but nowt has changed my attitude

35 years ago I was a school kid just getting involved in kayaking,
hill
walking and climbing through the Scouts and the Duke Of Edinburgh
Award
scheme. I remember reading Woodrow Wyatt - 'the voice of reason'
editorial column in the Daily Mirror when he was commenting on
another
of those "Group of Kids Get Lost on the Mountain" epics. (It took
the
Mountain Rescue services two days to find the group and when they did
the group was fine; they had pitched camp and waited for the weather
to
improve before descending back down off the Glyders). Mr Wyatt was
asking the question 'Why were these 17-18 year olds up the mountain
in
the first place - surely they should be picking up more useful life
skills like attracting a barmaid's eye in a crowded pub'. A flippant
example but the point was well made - I remember it all these years
later, but 35 years on the outdoor industry still has not managed
answer
the point to the media and general public. The media is still
outraged
when there is a tragedy on the mountains or drowning in the lakes or
sea. The media still wants to know why people are up a creek without
a
paddle or up the mountain in the rain.

Around the same time my brother was following me and starting
his kayaking career. He capsized and swam down the River Dee in
Llangollen. Separated from his boat he ended up on the island, as
many
have done before and since, just above the bridge. Whilst standing
marooned on this damp bit of rock a parent of one of the other boys
shouted down to him that he 'would have to swim for it' Unfortunately
this was overheard by a passing journalist and after gathering a few
further facts the story appeared in the Shrewsbury Chronicle under
the
headline 'BOY AGED 14 SWIMS TO SAFETY' The following day my mother,
blissfully unaware of all this, was startled to be greeted by the
butcher with the 'Mrs Manby I am so glad to hear your son is all
right!'
After reading the story she had to confess to having watched her sons
do
this or similar on many occasions. The butcher and other customers
were
amazed that our parents continued to allow us to partake in these
foolhardy pursuits. And despite the intervening years the general
public's attitude has not changed.

The Outdoor industry has failed to justify its existence to
the
general public and failed to answer the media's questioning.

For many years the outdoor industry's answer has been
'personal
development' or in days gone by 'character building'. But this is in
doubt now and all the anecdotal stories of how bad kids have been
turned
into good kids by going on a hike in the hills appear to be only
anecdotal - the Lanarkshire survey by Edinburgh University shows that
the kids with high self esteem keep their high self esteem and those
with low self esteem show no real improvement. Management training
after flirting with the outdoors as a tool for teaching delegation,
trust and other such qualities decided that there was no point in
putting managers into an uncomfortable environment to challenge their
preconceived notions when this can be done far better using other
tools.

I am not arguing that taking people out into the outdoors is
bad
- many people love it. I am arguing that the reasoning behind the
industry is faulty.

When Lyme bay happened the outdoor industry was so far down
the
road of mutual back slapping and complacency that it had to abdicate
all
responsibility for regulating itself and subjugate itself to 'centre
accreditation'. The result was a rush for paper qualifications and
the
loss of many experienced and good but unqualified instructors. This
abdication of responsibility extended to centre managers looking for
qualifications over experience despite this NOT being a legal
requirement. People I know who run outdoor centres would rather
employ
experience over qualification any day but, because of the implied or
assumed legal liability, they feel they cannot afford to take this
risk!
These centre managers now have to live with questionable
appointments;
they know that accidents will happen in the hills and on the lakes
and
on the rocks but they have to be able to show that the correct pieces
of
paper are in place when the questions have to be answered after an
accident. However a more experienced less qualified instructor might
have had the intuition to have foreseen and prevented the accident.
And
then the outdoor industry has the gall to talk about risk management!
But this rant of mine about the need for qualifications is a side
issue;
it has nothing to do with the more important matter - the demise of
the
moral soul of the spirit of adventure that the enjoyment of the
outdoors
requires.

It would seem that everything that the outdoor industry
purports
to instil in its customers: responsibility, trust, self esteem,
decision
making, and the like it has failed to learn itself.

The guy who runs Easy Jet said, referring to an accident on one of
his
father's ships, 'if you think safety is expensive you should try an
accident'. The accident at Lyme Bay was expensive: we, the people who
love the outdoors, paid for it with some of the soul of the adventure
we
all love and know to be the reason for outdoor adventure. We
retreated
into symposia and conferences, we told each other we were doing
things
right, we were tightening up on procedures, we were removing the
anomalies in some of the more irritating directives inflicted on our
industry, we were introducing 'risk assessment forms'. What we were
doing was watching our backs. Meanwhile in the pubs and bars we (both
instructors and individuals) carried on recounting stories of epics
had
and close calls avoided and all the other reasons why going out in to
the outdoors is enjoyable. Everyone who works in the industry knows
why
the outdoors is so enjoyable but sold out to the myth of risk-free
adventure.

The industry is not prepared to stand up and shout 'mea culpa! An
accident happened; it was worth it'. It was worth it because of the
hundreds of other people who discovered the surge of adrenaline when
running a rapid, it was worth it because of the thousands who feel
the
sense of achievement when they make their first summit, it was worth
it
because of the many many people who got that lift in the heart when
they
saw for the first time a cloud inversion with the other mountain
peaks
sticking up like islands in the sky, it was worth it because of those
who felt the rush of relief when they reached the jug-handle hold
after
a forty foot lead, it was worth it because of the few cripples who
discovered that by getting in a kayak or canoe they could cease to be
a
person with a disability, it was worth it for the sense of smugness
that
the outdoor industry can take from giving these people that smile on
their faces'.

The industry must get away from pointing the finger of blame at other
centres. It must stop looking at accidents and pointing out that
what
caused the accident would never happen here we must start looking at
the
reasons behind the causes of accidents and share the knowledge.
Every
centre will have had near misses but these are all not shared with
the
rest of the industry because of the ridicule that it will result in.
A
blame culture in an industry that has external risks is an unhealthy
culture as it is counter to improving safety.

In message . net,
rick
writes

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:j38Vd.38241$ya6.25850@trndny01...
That was kind of my take on it...

And many would agree.

I beg to differ. Reduce all of life's risks to the bare
minimum and you end up with a generation of children who grow
up to live their lives on Usenet.

Wolfgang
who would rather see them drown.

wow






--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

What can I say to that but Wow.

I agree with most of what you say, especially about the Outdoor
Industry
, especially some of the adventure sports like rafting, trying to
present their business as minimal risk or risk free. Since I end up
teaching Raft Guides swif****er rescue skills once in awhile, I have
seen that industry going to paper certification programs to reduce
liablity, as has much of the outdoor industry. ACA instructor
certifications, Swif****er Rescue, and Wilderness First Responder are
now as much just getting your ticket punched to get a decent outdoor
job
as knowledge that an outdoors person whats to learn and to know.
However, in the present climate, these certifications at least insure
somewhat of a base of knowledge on how to handle emergenciers.

The outdoors is always going to be a dangerous place and bad things are
going to happen. When bad things happen in the outback, things can go
to hell quickly and there is often nothing that you can do about it. We
as outdoor users must learn to accept that fact, look at accidents to
see if there are lessons to be learned and not on who to blame.

BTW, the Climbing Sport is much more vicious about blaming the victims
than paddlers.

Larry

Steve Landis wrote:
Brian Nystrom wrote:

No Spam wrote:

It did not have a good ending.

*Rescuers Find Lost Teen Kayakers Dead *



The "chaperons" took a group of kid out on the gulf with no other
means of summoning help than a friggin' cell phone?!? MORONS! Their
ineptitude cost two innocent kids their lives.


It seems the trip leader was more than a chaperone...

from... http://tinyurl.com/4r28a

"The tour was led by an English teacher at the private Darlington
School, Steve Hall, who is a licensed outdoor tour guide and leads
several weekend adventure trips for teens throughout the year. A
spokeswoman for the school said Hall, who has 25 years in outdoor
education experience, has led a similar trip to that area for seven
years and never had any safety problems. According to Hall's outdoor
education trip Web site, he is an experienced river rafting guide."

not that Steve

Which simply makes the situation all the more appalling and inexcusable.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

Uh oh. Shoulda listened to my lawyer.

There's a natural hierarchy to these things. Always listen to your
plumber and your electrician first.....then your accountant.....then your
doctor......and then your lawyer.

But still, Wolfie, play nice with your new friends.

The Burnsian postulate is always uppermost in my mind.


Huh?
Either youre a fan of Haggis, the Simpsons, or M*A*S*H.

--riverman