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


"RkyMtnHootOwl" <rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:si3ydn56nqz8$.ln04vufxrtm3.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:40:06 -0500, KMAN wrote:
>
>> "RkyMtnHootOwl" <rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1uyj4jn9f68p9.1ez7om9atpoaz$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 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!

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I am a fit for that label? And
what does "liberal" mean according to Tinkernhootowl.

>>> 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.

Finally, a sensible statement. That's two for you this month!

> 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.

A small price to pay.

> 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!

I see. I thought you were looking for serious discussion?

>>> 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!

Yes.

>>> 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.

Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement.

> 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!

Yes, you are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement.

>>> 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! :)

Great.

How would you feel about someone smearing you if your female companion died?

> 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.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying it is a fact that the
two individuals actually did anything wrong?

> 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.

What evidence is that that he was 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!

You are speculating. There are no facts to support your statement.

> 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!

If you had not been such an assclown - and simply explained your comments -
your humiliation would have been over long ago.

>>> 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!!!

Who gives a ***?

> snip
>>
>> 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!
>>
> 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!

Do you have evidence that the two individuals had sex?

>>>>> 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!

Which proves what?!?!?!?

>>>>> 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!

Good grief.

> 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!

You've just heard about it from me. There is as much evidence that there was
a UFO involved as there was to support your smears.

>>> 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 ***!
>>
> Let's see, you have called me and idiot, an ***, 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 !!!!

But according to you, since you responded to those comments, they are true!

>>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,....!

You don't have any facts to support your smear campaign.

> snip
>>
>> What are the facts to support it?
>>
> Ask, and answered many time here and before, do the research!

I've done the research, and you haven't provided any facts to support your
smears.

> snip
>>
>> And yet, you are worse than ever.
>
> And getting better all the time! Skippity do-dah!!! RkyMtnHootOwl OvO

And yet, you are worse than ever.


.

Loading