Ophelia

Started by J70, October 12, 2017, 03:22:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sid waddell

Quote from: Franko on October 19, 2017, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 19, 2017, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 10:40:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 04:29:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 01:39:10 PM
Are we saying the three people who died, died as a result of "Darwinism", so?

That seems to be the impression one gets from previous posts, anyway.

No, we are not.

Now I'm not saying that you are an absolute idiot, but 'one' would have to be an absolute idiot to read these posts and reach that conclusion.

Well, the message was to stay indoors. If the three people that died had heeded those warnings, they'd be alive.

Now, I'm not saying it was Darwinism, but the impression one gets is that others are happy enough to throw that sort of language around when it suits.

If people are calling some people who ventured out unnecessarily "idiots", well, by that logic, aren't all people who ventured unnecessarily out "idiots" too, including those who died? Because the conditions weren't just bad at sea, they were bad everywhere.

Or is it just because they're dead that you're not saying that?

The other language that is being thrown around is that of "leave them out there".

Does this also apply to attempted suicide, one wonders? Because attempted suicide is deliberately putting one's self in harms way.

If people are going to go down the vilification road, shouldn't they first be looking at the employers of that poor chap who died in Louth when a tree fell on his car, for not shutting for the day and forcing him to undertake what proved to be a very dangerous journey indeed?

Absolute idiot about covers it.
If you could address some of the points I raised, that would be nice.

There seems to be a general feeling here among a lot of posters that rescue teams of different varieties should leave people stranded, if they have ventured out in conditions that are not safe, or at best ask them to pay for the costs of the rescue.

That's a terribly US Republican view, isn't it?

And it would apply to most cases which rescue teams have to deal with, I suspect.

But to come back to the logic of the "leave them out there" mindset, how do we pick which cases are deserving of rescue and which aren't? How do we decide who should pay for the cost of their own rescue and who shouldn't?

And if some people who go out unnecessarily in a Code Red weather warning are "idiots", surely isn't everybody who goes out unnecessarily an "idiot"??

And what about employers who could easily have given their employees the day off, but didn't? Aren't they idiots?

There's even an undercurrent on this thread now where people such as yourself are referring to people who participate in certain sports as needing "a good dose of Darwinism", because these sports are dangerous.

That sort of view is a very silly one, even idiotic, I'd suggest.

If that's the sort of points you want to make then you can consider them addressed by my previous post.  Tell you what, every time you type out another post containing this drivel, refer back to this and it will give you my response.  It will save us both a lot of  time.  Good man.
Well, if I've encouraged you to offer no more new insight on this thread I think I'll have done both of us a service...
If you want to refer to your posts as 'insight' that's up to you.  I think the rest of us can see it for what it is.  Idiocy or trolling.  Neither being of much interest.
"The rest of us"  ;D

I got a right laugh out of somebody who writes the following thinking somebody else is trolling.

Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 12:53:36 PM
A good dose of Darwinism should sort things out pretty quickly after that.

Don't apply for any sort of position in any sort of rescue service any time soon would be my advice to you.







JoG2

#226
not a kiter but a surfer on the same coast at probably around the same time (judging by the Sky tweet)..worth a read

http://www.thejournal.ie/surfer-storm-ophelia-3652493-Oct2017/

And people hoped he'd drown, and we've a resident tough guy on here who wanted to take a golf club to the surf kiters

Main Street

Much is being made out of a few individuals indulging in extreme sports, taking advantage of the waves and wind, however ill advised.
Keeping Dublin Airport open and allowing planes to attempt landings was certifiably reckless.

Franko

Quote from: sid waddell on October 19, 2017, 10:07:38 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 19, 2017, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 19, 2017, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 10:40:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 04:29:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 01:41:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 18, 2017, 01:39:10 PM
Are we saying the three people who died, died as a result of "Darwinism", so?

That seems to be the impression one gets from previous posts, anyway.

No, we are not.

Now I'm not saying that you are an absolute idiot, but 'one' would have to be an absolute idiot to read these posts and reach that conclusion.

Well, the message was to stay indoors. If the three people that died had heeded those warnings, they'd be alive.

Now, I'm not saying it was Darwinism, but the impression one gets is that others are happy enough to throw that sort of language around when it suits.

If people are calling some people who ventured out unnecessarily "idiots", well, by that logic, aren't all people who ventured unnecessarily out "idiots" too, including those who died? Because the conditions weren't just bad at sea, they were bad everywhere.

Or is it just because they're dead that you're not saying that?

The other language that is being thrown around is that of "leave them out there".

Does this also apply to attempted suicide, one wonders? Because attempted suicide is deliberately putting one's self in harms way.

If people are going to go down the vilification road, shouldn't they first be looking at the employers of that poor chap who died in Louth when a tree fell on his car, for not shutting for the day and forcing him to undertake what proved to be a very dangerous journey indeed?

Absolute idiot about covers it.
If you could address some of the points I raised, that would be nice.

There seems to be a general feeling here among a lot of posters that rescue teams of different varieties should leave people stranded, if they have ventured out in conditions that are not safe, or at best ask them to pay for the costs of the rescue.

That's a terribly US Republican view, isn't it?

And it would apply to most cases which rescue teams have to deal with, I suspect.

But to come back to the logic of the "leave them out there" mindset, how do we pick which cases are deserving of rescue and which aren't? How do we decide who should pay for the cost of their own rescue and who shouldn't?

And if some people who go out unnecessarily in a Code Red weather warning are "idiots", surely isn't everybody who goes out unnecessarily an "idiot"??

And what about employers who could easily have given their employees the day off, but didn't? Aren't they idiots?

There's even an undercurrent on this thread now where people such as yourself are referring to people who participate in certain sports as needing "a good dose of Darwinism", because these sports are dangerous.

That sort of view is a very silly one, even idiotic, I'd suggest.

If that's the sort of points you want to make then you can consider them addressed by my previous post.  Tell you what, every time you type out another post containing this drivel, refer back to this and it will give you my response.  It will save us both a lot of  time.  Good man.
Well, if I've encouraged you to offer no more new insight on this thread I think I'll have done both of us a service...
If you want to refer to your posts as 'insight' that's up to you.  I think the rest of us can see it for what it is.  Idiocy or trolling.  Neither being of much interest.
"The rest of us"  ;D

I got a right laugh out of somebody who writes the following thinking somebody else is trolling.

Quote from: Franko on October 18, 2017, 12:53:36 PM
A good dose of Darwinism should sort things out pretty quickly after that.

Don't apply for any sort of position in any sort of rescue service any time soon would be my advice to you.

Glad you were fit to enjoy a giggle.

Given your credibility on this, you'll forgive me for not lending much weight to your 'advice'.

LeoMc

Quote from: JoG2 on October 19, 2017, 11:05:55 AM
not a kiter but a surfer on the same coast at probably around the same time (judging by the Sky tweet)..worth a read

http://www.thejournal.ie/surfer-storm-ophelia-3652493-Oct2017/

And people hoped he'd drown, and we've a resident tough guy on here who wanted to take a golf club to the surf kiters
His argument is very much along the lines of "I'm an advanced driver I should be allowed to speed though it wouldn't be safe for other drivers who are not as good as me".

armaghniac

Quote from: LeoMc on October 19, 2017, 01:30:59 PM
His argument is very much along the lines of "I'm an advanced driver I should be allowed to speed though it wouldn't be safe for other drivers who are not as good as me".

Exactly.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

JoG2

Quote from: armaghniac on October 19, 2017, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on October 19, 2017, 01:30:59 PM
His argument is very much along the lines of "I'm an advanced driver I should be allowed to speed though it wouldn't be safe for other drivers who are not as good as me".

Exactly.

you pair sound like my father when we head out to the west Donegal coast in the middle of winter ! Down with that sort of thing

AZOffaly

I'm a decent swimmer. Would you swim on a beach with a Red Flag? I wouldn't.

Anyone who went out unnecessarily in that storm, when they were advised not to, was certainly putting themselves at risk, however driving down to the chemist, or trying to go visit a sick relative or something, is a long way removed from deliberately putting yourself in a potentially perilous position, for no reason other than a selfish desire to seek a thrill.

I wouldn't be one of those who say 'leave them there' or 'let them drown'. You can't do that, and our rescue services wouldn't do that.

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.

Franko

Quote from: AZOffaly on October 19, 2017, 01:50:14 PM
I'm a decent swimmer. Would you swim on a beach with a Red Flag? I wouldn't.

Anyone who went out unnecessarily in that storm, when they were advised not to, was certainly putting themselves at risk, however driving down to the chemist, or trying to go visit a sick relative or something, is a long way removed from deliberately putting yourself in a potentially perilous position, for no reason other than a selfish desire to seek a thrill.

I wouldn't be one of those who say 'leave them there' or 'let them drown'. You can't do that, and our rescue services wouldn't do that.

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.

+1

Thanks for bringing the thread back to sanity.

johnneycool

Quote from: AZOffaly on October 19, 2017, 01:50:14 PM
I'm a decent swimmer. Would you swim on a beach with a Red Flag? I wouldn't.

Anyone who went out unnecessarily in that storm, when they were advised not to, was certainly putting themselves at risk, however driving down to the chemist, or trying to go visit a sick relative or something, is a long way removed from deliberately putting yourself in a potentially perilous position, for no reason other than a selfish desire to seek a thrill.

I wouldn't be one of those who say 'leave them there' or 'let them drown'. You can't do that, and our rescue services wouldn't do that.

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.

I'd agree with that, but there was a farmer on the news the other night who climbed up onto a shed roof at the height of the storm to fix it down and to my mind that was the other side of complete madness even if the intentions were for the right reasons.



JoG2

Quote from: AZOffaly on October 19, 2017, 01:50:14 PM
I'm a decent swimmer. Would you swim on a beach with a Red Flag? I wouldn't.

Anyone who went out unnecessarily in that storm, when they were advised not to, was certainly putting themselves at risk, however driving down to the chemist, or trying to go visit a sick relative or something, is a long way removed from deliberately putting yourself in a potentially perilous position, for no reason other than a selfish desire to seek a thrill.

I wouldn't be one of those who say 'leave them there' or 'let them drown'. You can't do that, and our rescue services wouldn't do that.

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.

that's fair enough, though you are viewing this from someone not into extreme sports. Extreme is the key word. Others however may come from a different stand point. And Franko thanks you for bringing the thread back to sanity. Even on a mild enough day, is surfing the big waves @ Aileens anywhere near sane? Would youse be in favour of stopping these men? I'd go out in fairly hairy conditions, but I wouldn't get towed out there for a fortune !

Franko

Quote from: JoG2 on October 19, 2017, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 19, 2017, 01:50:14 PM
I'm a decent swimmer. Would you swim on a beach with a Red Flag? I wouldn't.

Anyone who went out unnecessarily in that storm, when they were advised not to, was certainly putting themselves at risk, however driving down to the chemist, or trying to go visit a sick relative or something, is a long way removed from deliberately putting yourself in a potentially perilous position, for no reason other than a selfish desire to seek a thrill.

I wouldn't be one of those who say 'leave them there' or 'let them drown'. You can't do that, and our rescue services wouldn't do that.

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.

that's fair enough, though you are viewing this from someone not into extreme sports. Extreme is the key word. Others however may come from a different stand point. And Franko thanks you for bringing the thread back to sanity. Even on a mild enough day, is surfing the big waves @ Aileens anywhere near sane? Would youse be in favour of stopping these men? I'd go out in fairly hairy conditions, but I wouldn't get towed out there for a fortune !

Yes, but the difference here is that there was an explicit warning given which said NOT to do things like this on that particular day.  These people chose to ignore the warning and do it anyway.  For fun.

AZOffaly

JoG2,

Yes, I understand that. But my view on that was that not only are the conditions perilous, but the high winds make it perilous for others who might have to come and rescue you. So it's not just about you doing something dangerous, it's about you potentially getting someone else do do something dangerous to help you. I think it shows a bit of disregard for others.

In the normal course of events, Extreme Sports are not banned, so there is an acceptance that some lunatics (:) ) might have to be rescued, but at least the conditions for the rescue itself are not necessarily as dangerous as last Monday.

sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on October 19, 2017, 01:50:14 PM

So I would certainly be in favour of those putting themselves deliberately in harms way, particularly for recreational purposes, would be charged the cost of the emergency services coming out to rescue or remove them.
What's "deliberately putting yourself in harm's way?"

Is playing hurling "deliberately putting yourself in harm's way"?

Putting yourself on a pitch with 29 other people frantically swinging big sticks definitely sounds like "deliberately putting yourself in harm's way" to me. And for recreational purposes, too.









AZOffaly

If I thought you were serious I'd answer you.