🚀 go-pugleaf

Obwon wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:20:22 -0700, wrcowan1@hal-pc.org
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>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?  
> 
> 
>   Yes,  most definitely,  if they got in and out in
> their own boat,  and there are people in there in need
> of supplies,  why would you want to wait until some of
> those people possibly expired?  What in heavens name
> have "qualifications", to do with saving lives in this
> order of things?   Aren't you aware that children often
> perform heroically under such situations?  That they
> can and do save lives?  

And what would be said of the adults that let a group of children go in 
and that group perished because they were not qualified?  That adult 
would be arrested for child endangerment at the very least.  Even with 
qualification, someone could die but at least the risk is hopefully 
reduced.

Sure children have performed well but that was from being on the spot 
and having to take action.  Not from from going out and seeking risky 
conditions.  But all too often, children do perfom heroically but die in 
the process unable to rescue the one they were trying to help.  As a 
matter of fact, it happens that way more often then not.

> 
>   Stupid, stupid stoopid...  What if there's a man
> stuck and stricken behind a wall with a hole in it,
> that only a child,  at hand,  can fit through,  who
> needs an immediate injection?   Do you wait until you
> can find a small enough doctor or medic?  
> 

So what you are saying then that children should be attached to every 
first responder unit?  Just because you can point out a far-fetch 
senario for the use of a child does not mean that is the appropriate 
thing to do.  Actually it would be irresponsible.  Since hte child is 
not a doctor, and perhaps gives to much of a dose or screws up the man 
dies.  Even though the child performed heroically, the man still dies 
and the childs mind has been scarred with a tragedy that it should never 
had to experience.


> 
>>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
> 


MRC