🚀 go-pugleaf

<wrcowan1@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:432b9f10$0$10624$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
>
>
> 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

OooKaaaaayyyy..... sure, dude, sure.....

CAUTION: WORKING AGAINST YOUR OWN INTERESTS CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
CHILDRENS FUTURE