Ophelia

[sid waddell]

Extreme sports like hurling, or Tyrone club football?

[Franko]

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.

[Orior]

There are people who have to work even when everyone else is told to stay indoors.

- Policemen
- Ambulance drivers
- Firemen
- Doctors
- Nurses

There were suggestions that community halls and leisure centres should have been catering for the homeless. Clearly the people who run the community centre would have to leave their own home to go to the community centre.

I'm sure that those who went swimming know fine well that there was no life guard on duty, and did it for the thrill. The same kind of thrill that motor cyclists yearn when racing around the Northwest or Tandradgee 100.

[sid waddell]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

Sid, you are either a troll or just a bit thick if you can't tell the difference between a person who goes out swimming or kite surfing in "normal" weather and a person who wilfully ignores warnings associated with storm conditions. That's the cutoff point for the rescue services and they should refuse to put themselves at risk to save people who ignore warnings.

[sid waddell]

Sid, you are either a troll or just a bit thick if you can't tell the difference between a person who goes out swimming or kite surfing in "normal" weather and a person who wilfully ignores warnings associated with storm conditions. That's the cutoff point for the rescue services and they should refuse to put themselves at risk to save people who ignore warnings.

What proportion of people who need to be rescued, be it at sea, on a mountain, or wherever, get into difficulty because the conditions are not safe?

A very high proportion, I'd imagine.

The fact is, operating in unsafe conditions is part of the nature of the job for rescue teams.

Everybody who made an unnecessary journey of any sort during the warning period, ignored that warning.

[armaghniac]

The point is that this event was a once in 55 year affair and it wouldn't hurt anyone to sit it out just thus once.

[sid waddell]

The point is that this event was a once in 55 year affair and it wouldn't hurt anyone to sit it out just thus once.

Of course not - who said it would have?

Or face jail.

"What are you in for?"

"Murder. What are you in for?"

"Going kite surfing in a storm."

We'll be hearing calls for jaywalkers to be thrown in prison next.

"Let's be more like North Korea" is the message, I think.

[Franko]

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.

[Ball Hopper]

Did all the pubs close?

[Main Street]

'Awesome' stuff all the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFacIAc1Oo

[sid waddell]

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...

[whitey]

The Yanks have this stuff down

Have the police declare all the beaches closed by emergency order

If anyone steps foot on a beach they are immediately charged with criminal trespass.

No rescuing of anyone who ignores emergency orders

[Asal Mor]

Sid - I would draw the line at people who engage in water sports during a red weather warning. People will always venture out, even in the worst conditions. Only a select few eejits/thrill seekers get into the water.

[Franko]

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.