On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

snip

Dood:

a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a
coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or
association.

Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time!

In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following,

a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like
a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You
called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept!
Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is
expected that one would always be the center of attention.

As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander
up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as
he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion.

And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the
discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied
invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from
the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment
directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed
all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being
boorish, rude, and immature!

However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even
more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you
describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman
the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue
being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses!

And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details
than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made
regarding the accidental death. I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom
I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a
temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no
constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out
above!

It
is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people
on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of
newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well...
really STOOpid.

Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or
intelligent enough to hear what is being said!

Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when
you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was
not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that
I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the
subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished.

But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!!

b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising,
since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between
you and KMAN.

Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed
above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the
center of every conversation, and then making no substantive
contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying
to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you
also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose!

c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious
conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am
the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake.

Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose
to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much
to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious". Now, I
understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals
IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of
intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and
throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by
going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the
particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been
a contributing factor.

It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential
goodness of mankind,

Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us
not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then,
we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism, but
his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or
yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he
were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his
altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs!

that he persists in trying to get you to respond
politely; to engage in civilized discourse.

I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his
commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over. If he
really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off
course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding, instead
of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of.
His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me
to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent
questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better!

My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the
discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may
have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any
detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any
such detail to build some story board.

It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could
have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our
own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you
demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the
suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of
the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any
of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other,
or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next
time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no
enuendo! Which do you prefer?

To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with
out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being
discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG!

Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was
anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and
that if it had been going on, that could have been a major
distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the
subject of the discussion.

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.

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

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

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.


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. 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!

On 12 Dec 2005 08:59:14 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:51:51 -0500, KMAN wrote:

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'll get back to you when you improve yer reading comprehension skills
to the point where yer response actually addresses my remarks.

'Til then, attempting to communicate with you is just a waste of my
time, so I'm outta here.

This is Tinkernhootowl we're talking about. You were expecting something
logical and intelligent? LOL!

snip

And Kman cuddles up nice and close to Richard, Cute couple! I wonder
if Richard saw this coming! Maybe they will go on the trip together?


You mean, me with my "attributes" and KMAN with his "attributes"?
Gee-Zeus, I can just imagine the innuendo you would post if you learned
that I ever actually went boating with KMAN!


I don't know, was there anything going on? As it turns out, your last
trip was very short, so I doubt that much could have happened!
Regarding previous trips, only you two really know!

Actually, I have boated with a number of people whom I first met on
r.b.p over the last 10 or 12 years. Of current r.b.p participants I
have met
John Fereirra in New York and
C1man in Missoula, and I have
boated with
McCrae (from MD),
ven den Bergh (from Holland),
Cable (from
KY),
Kelly (from MO),
Mothra (currently in CA),
CintiBud (from OH), and
probably others I'm forgetting, although most of the old-timers like
the
RivieraRatt (OH),
Leland Davis (NC),
Chris Hipgrave (NC),
a smart and entertaining lesbian whose name I'll keep to myself (MA),
and
Chris Bell (NC)
(all of whom I've met and/or boated with) were driven out of
r.b.p by a couple of idiots who were even more pathological than you.

A notable list, and sad that they left the RBP, but that is their
choice. Most of them departed before I even showed up here, so I
cannot claim any complicity in their departure. How the RBP has been
conducted, and how it contributed to their departure in the past is
debatable. If you chose to conduct it as a cocktail party as you
described, then there will be some that will drive home drunk, and get
lost on the way. If you want it more civil and monitored, then are you
volunteering to be the monitor that makes sure we are all happy and
safe.

Hopefully your list of friends are still paddling and posting
somewhere else that is satisfying there needs. Maybe they would come
back if you yourself found a way to post substance here that we could
all enjoy commenting on. I personally left during the summer, because
I was having to much fun paddling to put up with the constant harangue
here to spend much time posting. Though I did lurk during the summer,
and I did not see any particular substance from you or any of your
other friends going on in my absense.

So though your old party is over, there is another cocktail party
going on somewhere else down the street. If you are thirsty, go find
it! Make new friends, find old ones!

KMAN could conceivably become one of my boating companions IRL.
Enjoy!

I am
planning a boating trip to CO, WY, and MT next summer (I haven't boated
the Rockies since the summer of 2000) but I can guarantee you that YOU
will not be one of the r.b.p correspondents whom I will ever attempt to
meet or to boat with.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

Meeting you here RBP is enjoyable enough to last a life time. Enjoy
your trip to Co, Wy, and Mt next summer. There is lots of water and
plenty of country for us all to have a good time. There should be good
water since they are reporting record snowfall!

Just don't drink and drive! I would not want you to get lost on the
way home!

RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

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

On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

snip

Dood:

a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a
coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or
association.

Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time!

In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following,

a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like
a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You
called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept!
Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is
expected that one would always be the center of attention.

As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander
up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as
he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion.

And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the
discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied
invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from
the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment
directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed
all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being
boorish, rude, and immature!

Actually, it was made as a statement, rather than a "thought" of yours.
Sadly, you still don't understand newsgroups, or how to keep from flapping
off ignorantly and embarassing yourself.

However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even
more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you
describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman
the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue
being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses!

You (incorrectly) stated that it was inappropriate for me to participate in
the thread in the way that I did. Thus, you are being boorish, rude, and
immature by continuing to whine about your own error.

And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details
than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made
regarding the accidental death.

That's right, you don't. But as a result of your vague and unexplained smear
of these two accident victims, you have, as usual, humiliated yourself.

I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom
I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a
temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no
constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out
above!

Who is suggesting that you can be forced into not looking like an idiot? Not
me. I know that you are fully determined - as is your right - to look like
as big of an idiot as possible.

It
is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people
on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of
newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well...
really STOOpid.

Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or
intelligent enough to hear what is being said!

Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when
you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was
not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that
I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the
subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished.

But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!!

Brilliant! Do you have an idea what you are trying to say?

b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising,
since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between
you and KMAN.

Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed
above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the
center of every conversation, and then making no substantive
contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying
to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you
also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose!

c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious
conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am
the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake.

Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose
to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much
to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious".

You don't thinking trying to get to the bottom of comments about people who
have died is serious? I guess that's your problem. You don't take human life
seriously. And you don't hold personal accountability as a value.

Now, I
understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals
IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of
intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and
throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by
going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the
particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been
a contributing factor.

What is "intellectual" about refusing to explain your comments?

It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential
goodness of mankind,

Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us
not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then,
we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism

What the christ are you talking about?

but
his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or
yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he
were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his
altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs!

I still believe you have it in you to recognize that your unfounded and
unexmplained smear of those two dead people was morally corrupt. I am,
indeed, an optimist.

that he persists in trying to get you to respond
politely; to engage in civilized discourse.

I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his
commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over.

Balderdash.

If he
really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off
course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding

I did that again and again.

instead
of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of.
His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me
to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent
questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better!

LOL. Childish? This from the guy who refuses to explain his own comments and
asks over and over again for people to take a guess? That sort of behaviour
is idiotic, and I said so. And it's still true. You are being an idiot.

My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the
discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may
have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any
detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any
such detail to build some story board.

What kind of bull**** is that? Did you mean what you said or not? And if you
did, what the hell were you saying beyond your vague statements - the
meaning of which you urged others to take a guess at.

It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could
have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our
own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you
demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the
suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of
the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any
of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other,
or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next
time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no
enuendo! Which do you prefer?

I would "prefer" that you quite being pathetically evasive, and have the
integrity to explain the meaning of your comments.

To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with
out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being
discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG!

Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was
anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and
that if it had been going on, that could have been a major
distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the
subject of the discussion.

Christ, we could speculate that someone is bashing your skull with a
baseball bat every time you sit down to write your posts in this newsgroup,
Tinkernhootowl. There's much stronger foundation available to pose that
theory that there is for your vague smear of those two paddlers.

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.

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

So?

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

You've still said nothing.

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!

This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts I
think I have ever read on rbp!!

OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for many
years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and
newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding
what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting
place to hang out. His dealings with you have been patient and
constructive, and your retort that 'the old party is over' and that he
should consider moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is
flabbergasting. Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real, or are you
just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory.

I think you owe OC1 an apology.

Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully
expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me.
Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will
have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to
deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks have
also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what is
happening. I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had
not been so over the top.

Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening.

--riverman

On 13 Dec 2005 21:42:57 -0800, riverman wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:43:15 -0700, RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:

On 12 Dec 2005 08:59:14 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:51:51 -0500, KMAN wrote:

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'll get back to you when you improve yer reading comprehension skills
to the point where yer response actually addresses my remarks.

'Til then, attempting to communicate with you is just a waste of my
time, so I'm outta here.

This is Tinkernhootowl we're talking about. You were expecting something
logical and intelligent? LOL!

snip

And Kman cuddles up nice and close to Richard, Cute couple! I wonder
if Richard saw this coming! Maybe they will go on the trip together?


You mean, me with my "attributes" and KMAN with his "attributes"?
Gee-Zeus, I can just imagine the innuendo you would post if you learned
that I ever actually went boating with KMAN!


I don't know, was there anything going on? As it turns out, your last
trip was very short, so I doubt that much could have happened!
Regarding previous trips, only you two really know!

Actually, I have boated with a number of people whom I first met on
r.b.p over the last 10 or 12 years. Of current r.b.p participants I
have met
John Fereirra in New York and
C1man in Missoula, and I have
boated with
McCrae (from MD),
ven den Bergh (from Holland),
Cable (from
KY),
Kelly (from MO),
Mothra (currently in CA),
CintiBud (from OH), and
probably others I'm forgetting, although most of the old-timers like
the
RivieraRatt (OH),
Leland Davis (NC),
Chris Hipgrave (NC),
a smart and entertaining lesbian whose name I'll keep to myself (MA),
and
Chris Bell (NC)
(all of whom I've met and/or boated with) were driven out of
r.b.p by a couple of idiots who were even more pathological than you.

A notable list, and sad that they left the RBP, but that is their
choice. Most of them departed before I even showed up here, so I
cannot claim any complicity in their departure. How the RBP has been
conducted, and how it contributed to their departure in the past is
debatable. If you chose to conduct it as a cocktail party as you
described, then there will be some that will drive home drunk, and get
lost on the way. If you want it more civil and monitored, then are you
volunteering to be the monitor that makes sure we are all happy and
safe.

Hopefully your list of friends are still paddling and posting
somewhere else that is satisfying there needs. Maybe they would come
back if you yourself found a way to post substance here that we could
all enjoy commenting on. I personally left during the summer, because
I was having to much fun paddling to put up with the constant harangue
here to spend much time posting. Though I did lurk during the summer,
and I did not see any particular substance from you or any of your
other friends going on in my absense.

So though your old party is over, there is another cocktail party
going on somewhere else down the street. If you are thirsty, go find
it! Make new friends, find old ones!

KMAN could conceivably become one of my boating companions IRL.
Enjoy!

I am
planning a boating trip to CO, WY, and MT next summer (I haven't boated
the Rockies since the summer of 2000) but I can guarantee you that YOU
will not be one of the r.b.p correspondents whom I will ever attempt to
meet or to boat with.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

Meeting you here RBP is enjoyable enough to last a life time. Enjoy
your trip to Co, Wy, and Mt next summer. There is lots of water and
plenty of country for us all to have a good time. There should be good
water since they are reporting record snowfall!

Just don't drink and drive! I would not want you to get lost on the
way home!

RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

"This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts
I think I have ever read on rbp!!

Oh how your virgin ears must burn! The insult of it all! Sound the
Alarm, rally the troops! I can hear the horde rising in counter
assault to defend the faith and honor of a great one!

OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for
many years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and
newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding
what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting
place to hang out.

Such cooperation, so much interest, before I came on board, all summer
long in my absense, and now the multitude of threads he starts with
his abundance of wisdom and experience of all his many years! Hoot

Look back and see that the RBP has been sliding into obscurity long
before I came along, and that, with Richard's and your able tutilage!
Is it that the old dog and pony shows do not have the drawing power
that you use to have? Or maybe even some grew weary of your primadonna
performance! Maybe they just grew older, wiser, and have other
interest! They moved on!!! Horror of Horrors!!!

His dealings with you have been patient and constructive, and your
retort that 'the old party is over' and that he should consider
moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is flabbergasting.

He is the one that bemoans that all the good old boys have moved on to
more desirable locals, that the old party is apparently over is just
my observation! Prove me wrong!

Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real,

I said friendlier, came here and posted, and got mugged by Kman, and
then Richard made comments about Christianity, that had nothing to do
with the discussion at hand. Speak of inflamatory, masturbatory, I
hope Richard felt better afterwards. So yes friendlier, but not a
lollipop!

or are you
just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory.

And what do you do with your spare time!!! Hmmmm?

I think you owe OC1 an apology.

Me thinks not! Convince me, with something other than your temper
tantrum, and threat to ignore me. If you ignore me, it just shows me
the lack of true concern and commitment to the RBP by those who
protest so much, and post so little! Go play with your flies!

Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully
expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me.
Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will
have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to
deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks
have also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what
is happening.

Well golly whiz, you sure know your stuff, and all the threads to
which I post. Not! Nor my friends who are glad to hear from me! So, Oh
mighty one, I find I do not need to suck from your teat no more! If I
find your post of interest, I will say hi, and if you choose to ignore
civility, you prove who is uncivil! No condescention intended, you may
stuff your ego where the sun don't shine!


I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had not
been so over the top.

I appreciate your stated concern, ignore me, and continue posting to
the RBP. and then I will believe your concern, when I see the previous
glory. Otherwise it is tripe!

Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening.

Blindmans Bluff anyone?!!

--riverman"



Where have all the others gone?

What has happened to the Kingdom, and the songs of old, and the story
telling lore? The previous glory is gone, and the paint is dim, the
ramparts in disarray, the walls fallen down! The enemy is at the gate,
and is over the wall! Is there no steel left to strike steel?

The battle flag lays trodden in the street! Woe is us! Who shall save
us from this ignomy? Who shall sound the battle horn? Wait, is that
Sir riverman, but why does he joust alone?

One swipe of his faithful sword, and Sir riverman of the Knights of
the RBP Round Table, dealt a mighty wound in defense of the cause of
the Kingdom of Richard the Lion Hearted, His Kanubic Travesty! But
even he cannot fight them all, by himself! The hordes, the hordes, the
terrible hordes are a terrible thing to see!

Now shall we sing his song? Shall we hear his tale of valor? No, for
there is none left to sing his song, or speak of his valor, for the
Kingdom is no more, all the others are gone! So riverman is left to
sing the songs of valor himself, and to exalt his Travesty! and no one
cares!

Why such a deplorable demise of such a bright and shining kingdom? Oh
such angst!

We can stand on our previous ramparts! We can dream of glorious
battleflags flown in waves most brillant! We can still hear the tint
of steel! When the men were men, and life was good, but dreams are all
we old men have to cheer out hearts, and lift our souls!

No, that is not exactly true, pass another round, around, and let us
remember the good old days! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO




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!

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote:

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

On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

snip

Dood:

a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a
coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or
association.

Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time!

In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following,

a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like
a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You
called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept!
Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is
expected that one would always be the center of attention.

As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander
up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as
he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion.

And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the
discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied
invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from
the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment
directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed
all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being
boorish, rude, and immature!
snip
However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even
more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you
describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman
the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue
being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses!
snip
And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details
than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made
regarding the accidental death.
snip
I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom
I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a
temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no
constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out
above!
snip
It
is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people
on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of
newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well...
really STOOpid.

Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or
intelligent enough to hear what is being said!

Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when
you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was
not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that
I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the
subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished.

But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!!
snip
b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising,
since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between
you and KMAN.

Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed
above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the
center of every conversation, and then making no substantive
contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying
to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you
also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose!

c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious
conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am
the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake.

Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose
to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much
to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious".
snip
Now, I
understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals
IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of
intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and
throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by
going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the
particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been
a contributing factor.
snip
It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential
goodness of mankind,

Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us
not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then,
we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism
snip
but
his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or
yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he
were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his
altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs!
snip
that he persists in trying to get you to respond
politely; to engage in civilized discourse.

I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his
commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over.
snip
If he
really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off
course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding
snip
instead
of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of.
His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me
to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent
questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better!
snip
My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the
discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may
have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any
detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any
such detail to build some story board.
snip
It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could
have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our
own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you
demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the
suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of
the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any
of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other,
or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next
time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no
enuendo! Which do you prefer?
snip
To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with
out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being
discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG!

Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was
anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and
that if it had been going on, that could have been a major
distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the
subject of the discussion.
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, 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.

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?

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!

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

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


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. The facts as
stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on. The
appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was
nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature.

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! 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!

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

Myron, from the very first post, this guy has come barging in here like
a rhino in a porcelain factory. At first I gathered he was just a
troll, but the more I saw of him, the more I have become convinced that
he lacks social skills altogether. It doesn't matter what someone does
or says, he takes everything out of context and comes up with insults
and misinterpretations without there being any reason. He's sent out
empty claims of wanting to befriend people before... to no avail.

Ignoring the pest seems to be the only way to deal with him. Replying
to anything he posts is just asking for more drivel. Unfortunately,
some people continue to feed the sick puppy, so he sticks around,
wallowing in the mud, enjoying the negative attention he gnerates.

Neither you nor Richard need to prove yourself on RBP. Most of us know
you two, some have met you in real life. That experience shows above
all text ever posted on RBP what kind of people you a friendly,
helpful, intelligent and reasonable. I'm grateful for having had the
chance to hang out with you and Richard and to get to paddle together,
and I will gladly do so again if the opportunity arises.

I doubt that anyone would ever willingly be in the company of the pest,
let alone deliberately go out for a paddling trip with him after they
have seen how he misbehaves her on RBP. Friendship and camaraderie
don't mix with behaviour like his.

Wilko

http://kayaker.nl


riverman wrote:
This is one of the most atrocious, insulting and compromising posts I
think I have ever read on rbp!!

OC1's contributions here are well-known, he has been a regular for many
years, has earned the respect and friendship of may regulars and
newbies, and (unlike you) is absolutely well-versed in understanding
what it takes to make this newsgroup a cooperative and interesting
place to hang out. His dealings with you have been patient and
constructive, and your retort that 'the old party is over' and that he
should consider moving along if he doesn't like the 'new rbp' is
flabbergasting. Is your claim to be 'friendlier' for real, or are you
just enjoying being inflammatory...again? Its a bit masturabatory.

I think you owe OC1 an apology.

Of course, I don't believe it will be forthcoming; in fact I fully
expect some sort of condescending fraternizing post directed at me.
Save it, Tinkerntom. This is the only communication with you I will
have on this, or any other, newsgroup, as I know that the only way to
deal with you is to ignore you. If you haven't noticed, many folks have
also figured that out, and you deserve to know that this is what is
happening. I wouldn't even be having this if your post to Richard had
not been so over the top.

Good luck making friends, but I don't see it happening.

--riverman

Hey Wilko:
No worries, I thought the little guy could use a dose of the clue bat.
Wasted bandwidth, I suspect (and I mean that in more ways than one.)
;-)

So how's the healing coming along? I was walking home from work the
other night and saw that my school hosts water polo one night a
week...figured I might take a chance and get back in a kayak and see
what happens. Don't get me wrong...this doesn't mean I'm considering
the Dark Side; its just hard to find open boats here and I really want
to be floating. I'm working on a plan to get one shipped out in the
fall, but thats a while from now. Meanwhile, plans are afoot for a
lengthy series of summer trips. I'll keep folks posted.

--riverman

"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:

On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

snip

Dood:

a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a
coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or
association.

Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time!

In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following,

a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like
a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You
called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept!
Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is
expected that one would always be the center of attention.

As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander
up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as
he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion.

And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the
discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied
invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from
the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment
directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed
all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being
boorish, rude, and immature!
snip
However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even
more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you
describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman
the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue
being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses!
snip
And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details
than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made
regarding the accidental death.
snip
I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom
I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a
temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no
constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out
above!
snip
It
is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people
on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of
newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well...
really STOOpid.

Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or
intelligent enough to hear what is being said!

Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when
you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was
not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that
I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the
subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished.

But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!!
snip
b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising,
since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between
you and KMAN.

Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed
above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the
center of every conversation, and then making no substantive
contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying
to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you
also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose!

c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious
conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am
the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake.

Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose
to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much
to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious".
snip
Now, I
understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals
IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of
intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and
throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by
going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the
particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been
a contributing factor.
snip
It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential
goodness of mankind,

Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us
not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then,
we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism
snip
but
his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or
yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he
were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his
altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs!
snip
that he persists in trying to get you to respond
politely; to engage in civilized discourse.

I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his
commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over.
snip
If he
really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off
course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding
snip
instead
of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of.
His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me
to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent
questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better!
snip
My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the
discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may
have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any
detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any
such detail to build some story board.
snip
It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could
have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our
own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you
demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the
suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of
the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any
of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other,
or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next
time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no
enuendo! Which do you prefer?
snip
To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with
out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being
discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG!

Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was
anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and
that if it had been going on, that could have been a major
distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the
subject of the discussion.
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?!?!?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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!

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!

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 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. 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!

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?

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 ****!!"

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