Re: Protection of the public

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:17:46 +0100, Simon Challands
<simon_usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <amr6c25qngo4dihljn2fr5hdm97736mnho@xxxxxxx> you wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:27:51 +0100, Simon Challands
<simon_usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <dm96c2h9qd2s56ig3lhi84jtsreumrcfte@xxxxxxx>
amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

It's not a question of "research". I'm responding to what you
indicated was the policy of the NT and that was to route people
towards potentially dangerous places. Are you denying this?

Not as an end in itself, but if they've decided that it's the way that best
meets their aims then they might, within reason (i.e. they aren't going to
start routing paths straight over crags).

No-one's suggested that

The original comment about deliberately routing paths towards dangerous
situations meant exactly that. The fact that you chose to interpret it
as meaning they wanted to deliberately put people in danger for the fun of
it is your problem; it so obviously isn't true that it's surprising anyone
would even consider it and then start arguing against it. It's a particularly
clumsy straw man argument.

Absolute rubbish! It wasn't me who said the NT wanted to put people
deliberately in danger it was "Mick" So get your facts right before
you start mouthing off.



I've no love for the NT whatsoever,
but if you're going to attack them please do on sensible points, not on
meaningless stupid rants.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion that the NT and other
similar organisations should take all reasonable steps to protect the
public. It goes without saying that if there had been railings at
both the locations we are discussing the deaths of two small children
might have been avoided.

You could equally blame the parents, which is probably unfair, but equally
justifiable. FWIW most people think they do take all reasonable steps to
protect the public, you have a clearly different opinion of reasonable.

The problem is the NT took no steps to protect the public at the gorge
in question.


Of course that won't happen, because we all know
you're a troll, but it's fun stringing you along.

I'm not trolling at all. And if you think that opposing safety that
could prevent further deaths if fun, then you're wrong.

Opposing safety that could prevent further deaths is quite sensible some-
times, because it is often taken too far.

Read what you wrote. You're confused.

Opposing you is fun.


Only for the infantile

Incidentally, what should the protection against trees be? Every single
tree should be fenced off, or steel reinforced covered walkways through
anywhere wooded?

They should be inspected frequently to establish they are safe in
areas where the public are invited. It seem the HSE have persuaded NT
to do this on this occasion.

Every single tree in the country? Get real. Any near public paths that there
is reason to suspect are rotten, yes. The rest, no. Even then, trees can
fall unexpetedly. A good storm can bring down perfectly sound trees, and
there's nothing much that can be done to prevent that, short of felling
every tree.

Every tree should be inspected regularly on ground where the public
are invited for recreation. Just the same as other recreational
facilities are regularily inspected.

Sorry, no. I forgot. People should either be at home or at
work, and nowhere in between, unless they've paid millions in insurance and
probably signed a few dozen waivers.

Have you a degree in stupidly or does it just come naturally ?

Oh? Why's that? What have I said that's stupid? It seems to be a reasonable
statement of your general opinion about partaking in any leisure activity.
Anyway, insulting you doesn't make me stupid.

You obviously have a flair for it :-))

I really hope you are a troll, and don't believe the nonsense you spout. It
would be depressing if there are people in this world who think (for want
of a better word) like you do.

Be as depressed as much as you like; it goes well with stupidity :-))

In which case the smiley probably doesn't represent your state of mind.

I think your state of mind induces many smileys :-))

Have another one :-))


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: EDEN LOG (no spoilers)
    ... reason is essential. ... intent -- I also enjoy. ... whatever it was above that the "tree" society did to him ... door, and encountering the processing or adapting man in the roots, ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: any chance mid-ohio could ever host the MotoGP USGP event?
    ... I can remember tree stand's near the ... if for no other reason than to show who's ... can just imagine those light powerful bikes, ... French GP - Paul Ricard (full circuit) ...
    (rec.motorcycles.racing)
  • Re: firing up the grill
    ... history that can be "proven" then we may have differing views of what ... be a reason for something else. ... identical with its existence in objective reality even though we know ... But we don't experience a tree on an atomic level, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Treatment of some posters
    ... > for no reason but to rankle the regulars. ... But the problem is the danger ... And the humiliation you inflict on others by your constant use of foul ... >> And McCarthyism had people killed, put in jail, or with ruined careers. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Stories that made you cry
    ... If that's the only sign, she isn't expecting to die, ... A "Danger Will Robinson" sign of some sort. ... easily think "oh, they space the nasty evil prisoners, but whey wouldn't ... Nor actually stupid reason neither. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)