🚀 go-pugleaf

Obwon wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:53:41 -0700, wrcowan1@hal-pc.org
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And your insistance to wait until everything is perfect before doing
>>>anything is proof that you haven't got a clue. There are always problems in
>>>a relief effort, you solve them as they come up while still providing some
>>>kind of help, you don't wait on the sidelines hoping to get all your ducks
>>>in a row...it will never happen and you are just wasting time and lives
>>>while trying. Don't be so stupid all of your life...
>>>
>>
>>No, I do not say wait until everything is perfect but you can not allow 
>>just every joe into the area to help.  
> 
> 
>   WHY NOT?  After all, if they can get in and your
> agency can't,  why should people have to die waiting
> for help?  

Simple, Would you allow a bunch of girl scouts in to help (providing 
they got in) and they had their own boat?  No, because they are not 
capable to handle a situation of that sort.  That may be true with any 
group.  If you allow said girl scouts in, and they got in trouble (boat 
sank), who would help them?  Now you have another set of people to 
rescue. Who knows that they are there in the first place.  Perhaps they 
came in on there own and are searching an area that already was 
searched.  How will anyonew know to look there if that area had already 
been cleared.   IF they are spotted then that is resources that have to 
be redirected.

Do you really care what the paperwork shows
> about the person who shows up with their own boat to
> take you out of the flood?  Or would you rather wait
> for a properly certified boat and operator?

You know initial rescues always happen but that is by people already 
there.  But at some point you tell them to clear out. Or their efforts 
are coordinated by some agencyso that ou are not wasting time searching 
the same area over and over..

> 
>   In an emergency you rely on effectiveness,  not
> certifications.  If there are resources available, in a
> life and death situation,  you have to deploy them and
> hope for the best,  not wait to make sure!  By time you
> make sure the people you're rescueing could be dead,
> then what does your certifications and paperwork mean?
> It means that you are an incompetent fool,  unable to
> reason and therefore dangerous.
> 

Yes you rely on effectiveness but you do not send out a whole buch of 
people to do water rescues that can not swim.  That is when 
certification is needed.  The point of certification is to know that a 
person has a level of training to do certain tasks so that they 
themselves do not need to become to rescued.  Nor do you just allow 
everyone in that wants in.  Then you are creating a confusing situation 
that lacks any control.

As I said before, if you send out a whole bunch of girl scouts (i.e. 
people not trained) who are not up to the job but you want to use 
everyone you have to be effective, you cease being effective and become 
irresponsible.  Whether you know it or not, but those local and state 
and Federal officials who are involved in recue efforts are responsible 
for peoples lives.  I am talking about those who are doing the rescues. 
  Further more without order come chaos.

It is not about paper work, it is about responsibility.  To allow in 
anyone unfetterd would be asking for disaster and chaos.  If one of them 
dies, who bears the responsibilty.  What happens when of the would be 
rescuers needs rescuing and the one that come to rescues him dies.  Who 
is responsible for that.

MRC