Re: I just don't understand why...


"RkyMtnHootOwl" <rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1uyj4jn9f68p9.1ez7om9atpoaz$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:00:39 -0500, KMAN wrote:
>
>> "RkyMtnHootOwl" <rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1gou27nh8xvhm$.70gykm29z2zf$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:41 -0500, KMAN wrote:
>>>
>>>> in article bqm3dz06ss1z$.1k76eyyby32cp$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, RkyMtnHootOwl
>>>> at
>>>> rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx 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/story/11567048p-12300973c.html
>>>>>
>>>>> in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article
>>>>> that started this post. Two points primairly,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be
>>>>> wearing life jackets, police said.
>>>>
>>>> So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean
>>>> without
>>>> them? Idiots.
>>>>
>>> Apparently this one does, maybe a bad policy
>>
>> Maybe? MAYBE?
>>
>> You are willing to make all sorts of wild speculations about these two
>> dead
>> people, but you lack the balls to come out and say that guiding people on
>> the ocean without PFD's is not a bad policy?!?!?
>>
>
> First off, get your facts straight - There is only one dead person!

Fine.

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

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

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

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

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

> Being a Good liberal

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

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

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

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

>>> but then the guidees are
>>> still responsible for their own decisions apart from the guide and
>>> company, no matter what the policy. People need to accept
>>> responsibility for their own decisions. What was the guide to do bash
>>> them over the head to make them put their PFD's on.
>>
>> I see. So if you were a guide, and two paddlers wanted to go out on the
>> ocean with you but not wear PFD's, you wouldn't tell them "PFD's on, or
>> forget it!"
>>
>> Man, you really are a first class idiot.
>>
> I have been in a similar situation, as a scout commander! When certain
> individuals decided that they did not have to operate within certain
> protocols. As a result, they did not get to go on the group campout.
> That was my decision, and I would stand by it today. But at the time
> there were some really upset parents who wanted me out of the
> commander position immediately.

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

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

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

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

I hope it doesn't.

>>>>> 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out
>>>>> of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>> Kman optimistic? no, but so naive.....or is it ignorance?.........!
>>> See below!
>>>
>>>>> Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the
>>>>> water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and
>>>>> also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master
>>>>> Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would
>>>>> have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with
>>>>> other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was
>>>>> married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter
>>>>> what the actual relationship was.
>>>>
>>>> Are you in a time warp?
>>>>
>>> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>
>> It has to do with your bizarre and archaic suggestion that a man and a
>> woman
>> cannot go paddling together.
>
> I did not say that a man and a woman cannot go paddling together, and
> at the same time maintain a wholly upright relationship. This couple
> may have been totally upright! But they also could have been totally
> distracted, which was the suggestion that this could have been a
> contributing factor in the bad decisions that led to a tradgedy.

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

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

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

>>>>> The military is as much concerned
>>>>> with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on
>>>>> the military.
>>>>
>>>> The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things
>>>> than
>>>> right or wrong.
>>>>
>>> Possibly so, but then they are the ones that made the Rules of
>>> Military Conduct, to which the Master Sergeant agreed to observe! Sort
>>> of like an employment contract which the Master Sergeant signed. He
>>> might not have liked it, but he never the less agreed to the contract!
>>
>> Did he break the contract? What are you talking about? And what does it
>> have
>> to do with their deaths?
>>
> I don't know, you don't know, but I am certain that there will be an
> investigation, so it will be interesting to find out!

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

>>>> BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD?
>>>>
>>> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>
>> It has to do with your strange concern for military appearances.
>>
> I suppose the Canadian military never polishes their brass!

Who gives a ***?

>>>>> He should have been concerned with how it appeared to
>>>>> the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on
>>>>> this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions.
>>>>
>>>> Bull***. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus
>>>> far
>>>> don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while
>>>> paddling.
>>>>
>>> I would be smearing with speculation if I did as you desire, and
>>> developed some story line beyond the facts as stated.
>>
>> You have.
>>
> I never went beyond the facts as stated! If there is any taint, it
> only points out the necessity to avoid the appearance of evil!

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

>>> The facts as
>>> stated, indicate that there was borderline fraternizing going on.
>>
>> What are the "facts" that indicate this? I haven't seen any such facts.
>>
> If a man will not see the facts, he is the same as the blind man who
> cannot see at all! However it does not change the facts!

What are the relevant facts?

>>> The
>>> appearance of fraternizing is enough to convict, though there was
>>> nothing actually occurring of a steamier nature.
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? There's no law (military or
>> otherwise)
>> about going paddling.
>>
> No, but there is about fraternizing!

And there is no evidence whatsoever of "fraternizing."

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

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

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

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

>>>>> Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can
>>>>> learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and
>>>>> unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we
>>>>> wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf.
>>>>
>>>> What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out,
>>>> whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was
>>>> boning
>>>> this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so,
>>>> I
>>>> have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball
>>>> bat?
>>>> If not, what the hell are you trying to say?
>>>>
>>> As stated above, we have no facts to indicate one way or the other,
>>> from any of the news articles!
>>
>> Right. Just as we have no facts to indicate one way or the other whether
>> someone is bashing your skull while you write, which I might speculate is
>> one of the only means of explaining your idiotic behaviour.
>>
> Is that your professional diagnosis?

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

>>> To draw any conclusionas you desire
>>> along those lines would be pure speculation. To draw conclusions
>>> regarding the appearance of what may have been going on is within the
>>> scope of the facts as presented! The facts as presented, appear to
>>> indicate that bad decisions were made regarding the days planned
>>> outing, and that those bad decisions may have been mitigated by the
>>> fraternizing!
>>
>> Utter bull***. There are no facts whatsoever to support this.
>>
> as you say, "Bull ***!!"

What are the facts to support it?

>>>>>> I know better, I know I'll
>>>>>> never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my
>>>>>> slander, and leave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well
>>>>> intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me.
>>> snip
>>>>> And as you ably
>>>>> pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am
>>>>> concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Life is about each moment of breath,
>>>>> Living, about each breathless moment!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT
>>>>>
>>>>> and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0
>>>>>
>>>>> at rkymtnhoothoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 WW kayaks,
>>>>> '73 Folbot Super,
>>>>> pre '60 Klepper AEII
>>>>> 77 Hobie Cat 16
>>>>>
>>>>> To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message!
>>>>
>>>> Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl!
>>>
>>> I feel much better now, Thank you! OvO
>>
>> And yet, you are worse than ever.
>
> And now again I feel so much better!! Cleansed!!! Thank you for the
> opportunity to be clear headed, and unencumbered as I speak the truth!
>
> RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

And yet, you are worse than ever.


.

Loading