![]() |
Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. Wow. That's interesting. On one hand, you have the NYFD firefighters who were killed after rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center to save lives on 9/11, and then you have Scott Wieser, who *might* help, depending on whether or not his own life might be at risk. You're my hero. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. |
A Usenet persona calling itself The Unreal Franklin wrote:
Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. Wow. That's interesting. On one hand, you have the NYFD firefighters who were killed after rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center to save lives on 9/11, and then you have Scott Wieser, who *might* help, depending on whether or not his own life might be at risk. You're my hero. Well, maybe I'm your hero. It depends. Did you do something egregiously stupid to get yourself into trouble? Are you saveable, or would it be a futile attempt to recover a body that puts rescuer's lives at unnecessary risk? Do I have the proper tools and equipment to give me a reasonable probability of success, or, like the unfortunate would-be rescuer at the Potholes, west of Grand Junction on the Little Dolores, who drowned after being pulled underwater because he tied a blanket to his wrist while trying to save someone who fell into the raging flood, is what I have at hand more likely to get me killed than save the victim? Dead rescuers can't save anyone. It's asinine to leap to the rescue of someone in trouble if you don't know what you're doing or don't have the proper equipment to at least give some probability of success to the attempt. You can be a dead hero if you like, but I'll calculate my risks first, thanks. Do you think that the NYC fire department would have ordered 343 firefighters into the buildings on 9/11 if they *knew* that they were "rushing into a collapsing World Trade Center?" No way. They're not that stupid, nor are they that callous, nor would any sane NYFD firefighter have obeyed such an asinine order. Firefighters have families too, and they deserve to go home at the end of the day. And while we (yes, we, I'm a volunteer firefighter) may choose to take risks, sometimes substantial risks, we do it *voluntarily*, and we don't do it stupidly because we don't want to die any more than anyone else does. If you become the kind of "hero" firefighter you refer to, it usually means you miscalculated the situation and got killed, usually along with the victim, while attempting a rescue. Firefighters aren't heroes because they take stupid risks and do stupid things, they are heroes because they train like the devil so that they know *exactly* what they are doing and can accurately assess the risks involved in fighting a fire or making a rescue so that they know when to back off and when they can push the envelope to save a life. They are heroes because they know exactly where the edges of the envelope are and how far they can go without getting killed, and because they decide to go into the burning building anyway, unlike most people, including you, I imagine, who run away from the fire and hope a firefighter will save them. They're not heroes because they throw their lives away uselessly on lost-cause situations. The NYFD went into the towers to fight the fires and save victims, fully expecting to succeed in putting the fires out, not to pointlessly sacrifice their lives for nothing in a building doomed to imminent collapse. While there was certainly some risk of collapse, because that's inherent in any structure fire, from the point of view of the fire department at the time, the risks inherent in entering the buildings were thought to be acceptable, based on their knowledge of the structures and their firefighting experience. Nobody, including the engineers and builders of the towers, knew at the time that the force of the jets collisions would strip away the insulating foam from the steel and thus subject the structure, particularly the truss flooring system, to aviation fuel-based fire far beyond the design parameters of the steel. Nor did they know that failure of the joist hanger bolts, caused by melting, sagging floor joists on the fire floors, would cause a progressive and catastrophic failure of the entire building's structure. Nobody even dreamed it was possible because the buildings were built specifically to prevent such heat-related structural failures. Unfortunately, this event exceeded all the "worst case" design parameters, but the NYFD had no way of knowing that at the time. The fire department entered the building to put out the fire fully believing that the basic structure of the towers would remain intact and that the risks of fighting the fires was acceptable and within department guidelines. They had no idea that a catastrophic collapse was impending. If they had, I absolutely guarantee you that they would not have allowed 343 firefighters to enter the building just so they could die, even if that meant that some victims inside could not be rescued. If you don't believe me, then why don't you ask them? Firefighters are not stupid, and they don't generally take unnecessary risks. Sometimes that means they can't rescue people and the victims die. That's very sad, but it's just a fact of life, not their fault, and doesn't make them cowards just because they don't meet your twisted definition of "hero." Your implication that somebody else ought to throw their life away just to try to pull your sorry ass out of some cleft stick you've stuck it into is unbelievably arrogant. The lesson here is: "Sometimes you die." Would you care to make an ass of yourself again, or have you had enough? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. Are you having an MPD moment? Since you're not "everyone," you must be, and even if "everyone" believed as you suggest, that would not change the truth of my statement. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself The Unreal Franklin wrote:
Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different. Yeah. And what I'm hearing from you is that you don't WANT to save anybody. You COULD, but you don't WANT to. Actually, I've spent most of my life saving people, as a Red Cross instructor, EMT, ER technician, police officer and firefighter, not to mention my volunteer activities in search and rescue with the Civil Air Patrol. How many lives have YOU saved? You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about you, however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate." -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 6/23/05 7:39 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/23/05 5:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 6/22/05 9:06 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scotts figures: ============= Voluntary insurance is fine. Compulsory insurance is not, including compulsory "liability" insurance we have to carry on our vehicles. ============== WRONG! I need to know that when you put me out of action through an automobile accident, that you'll have enough insurance to cover my loss of income and sundry other expenses. Why do you "need" to know this? What makes you believe that you have some inherent right to know this, or to demand that I have anything at all by way of insurance? Can you state any principle in the Constitution that gives you this "right" to demand such things of me? I think not. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically states that Scott Weiser has the right to be an idiot, and yet, you persist. Takes one to know one... Actually, it doesn't. EVERYONE knows you are an idiot. Are you having an MPD moment? Since you're not "everyone," you must be, and even if "everyone" believed as you suggest, that would not change the truth of my statement. OK, I stand to be corrected. Anyone out there care to make a case that Scott Weiser is not an idiot? crickets chirping |
Too much money is disease and disease treatment...no benefactors of
good health except Ford, GMC, etc.etc.etc. Bad business and good business.... |
You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Which means that you actually know ****-all about me. What I know about you, however, is that you're a tiny-minded wiper of other people's bottoms who makes snap judgments and post insulting comments because you're too stupid to wrap you're puny intellect around the concept of "debate." Lessee... oh, here it is: You make the common mistake of attributing character traits to a person based on a Usenet debate. Pot...kettle...black. Oooh, the Civil Air Patrol. Sorrreee, Colonel. I take it all back. Your compassion is unrelenting. You are the savior of all humanity. |
Not to mention there is alot of money to be made from the side effects
of modern drug medicine...in fact they now create 'new' diseases based on them... Dementia, parkinsons....how much is drug caused....(combination of drugs as well....) Too much profit in disease.... USA ranked 33rd in the world... Time Americans and Canadians spent their money on good products....chandeliers, cars, gold, diamonds... (self-interest sort of ) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com