On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote:

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

snip

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

Fine.

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

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

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

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

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

I was not uncomfortable commenting on the policy, it just was not my
area of interest. I was primarily interested in knowing what may have
affected the decision making ability of the two customers, who I
believe are still ultimately responsible for their own welfare.

Personally, I would never feel comfortable being in a situation where
I had to depend on someone else for my welfare. That includes, but is
not limited to airline transportation. When you get on a commercial
airline, you are putting your life in their hands. The nature of air
travel requires compliance on the part of passengers, so the airlines
actually have authority to enforce their protocols. Anything short of
the airlines though, may take some convincing for me to subject myself
to the company policies. So to avoid a potential conflict, I find it
easier to not subject my self to "guided" tours!

Being a Good liberal

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

I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to be a liberal!
Beats me, someone with a gun pointed at your head! I give up!

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

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

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

As far as I know, whether you are "liberal or conservative," we all
drown the same. So it would probably be a good idea for everyone to
wear a PFD.

Now I prefer to limit the regulatory load on business, and believe
that most people should be able to determine the wisdom of certain
actions where their life is at stake. There is a fine line between
desirable and undesirable regulations. I do not like the idea of
having a reg for every aspect of our life inorder to protect us from
every little thing that can happen. That has been tried in the past,
and before long, you have to have a reg protecting you from hurting
yourself while lugging the reg book around!

Having a reg that requires highway engineers to paint a white stripe
down the middle of the highway, and then require drivers to stay on
one side of the road or the other depending on which way they are
traveling is probably a good idea.

However requiring a person to wear a PFD may be more difficult. The
Coasties have required that a PFD be available for each person, but
there are plenty of times that I could go out in my Klepper, and not
feel the need to have it on. So then we get into the witches brew of
figuring out when a kayak is a kayak, and the reg book starts growing
thicker.

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

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

Maybe just to be a pain in yours!

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

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


Especially the boys who just wanted to have a good time!

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

I hope it doesn't.

snip

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

No, I was speculating as to what may have affected their judgement
that resulted in such a tragic result. If they put themselves in a
compromising situation as well, then we can learn that it is best to
avoid the appearance of compromise as well personally, if we feel
uncomfortable with the insinuation of a particular situation. However,
this may or may not have been an issue in this circumstance!


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

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

Neither am I, in fact some of my favorite times are with my wife out
paddling (Paddling the Kayak, not my wife, nor me!

However, neither am I in the military, though my wife was. She is the
one who has informed me that this was a compromising situation that
the Master Sergeant should have known to avoid. Apart from him dying,
he could easily have lost rank, pay, etc. My wife is an upright moral
person, but they were constantly warned and made aware of putting
themselves in a compromising fraternizing position, if for no other
reason, that it could affect their readiness status.

It could also make them vulnerable to blackmail by hostile agents. I
do not have any facts of the specifics of what training this group was
involved in, but let us suppose he was dealing with arming nuclear
weapons being put on a bomber at Travis Air Force base. Would you want
him to have made himself vulnerable to dereliction of duty because he
got involved in a compromising personal situation.

Maybe he did programming, and was forced to enter a small back door in
a program that allowed someone to access the program and steal
millions of dollars worth of high priced government toilet seats. Who
knows what is the limit of this type of activity.

That is the problem with situations like this, it might seem to have
been a disconnected accidental death, but then a lot of other issues
come into play. It would just have been better to avoid the situation
entirely. The Master Sergeant may have gone paddling by himself and
drowned anyway, but at least the suggest scenario would be less
likely!

snip

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

Well thanks to you it has not been fun, and very little amusement
except what you have provided!

snip

I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass!

Who gives a ****?

Well evidently the generals who have all those boys shining their
buttons. The closest I came to military service was ROTC during the
Vietnam war. Personally all the button polishing did not do anything
for me, but some got excited about it. I chose not to pursue a
military career, which I have a hunch I would have struggled with
being a joiner and going along with all the hoop-la!!!

snip

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

No, sex is wonderful, and certainly not deviant. I would even go so
far as to say that sex between non married participants is extremely
wonderful. The problem is not the sex, but prior commitments!

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

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

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

What are the relevant facts?

They were both in the military,
The man was married!

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

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

No, but there is about fraternizing!

And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing."

Fratenizing goes beyond sexual contact! Fraternizing can occur when
two individuals of the same sex, but different rank would become
friends in such a way that the lower ranked person would use the
friendship to gain an advantage over other equally ranked individualsm
and compromise the chain of command. The primary problem occurs when
Officers are involved with enlisted individual.

This could even occur when a couple are both in the military, and when
they meet on base, they have to maintain complete separation of their
personal lives, from their military responsiblity. In other words, no
kissy face when they are on duty, even though they are married! Which
I agree is another reason I would not fit to well in the military
scheme of things, I like to kiss my wife whenever!

snip

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

As far as I know, I have not heard anything about a UFO, so if you
have some info along that line, I am sure the investigators would be
interested in hearing from you!

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

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

Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an asshole, stupid, and I am
sure a few other descriptive terms. So how do I respond to such non
contributory, articulate pronouncements? Oh, I know, FLUSH !!!!

snip

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

Is that your professional diagnosis?

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

Good, at least I have you trying to deal with facts! That is one big
step for mankind,....!

snip

What are the facts to support it?

Ask, and answered many time here and before, do the research!

snip

And yet, you are worse than ever.

And getting better all the time! Skippity do-dah!!! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO