On Jun 16, 5:21=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
[snipped Mike's usual insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>
> You seem to have an open mind about this. =A0I'm not sure that is allowed
> here.
>
Desk, keyboard, monitor, coffee.........thanks, Ed.
On Jun 16, 11:39=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
> >> stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
> >> Australians?
>
> > Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
> > responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
> > which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
> > this thread.
>
> Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side=
of
> it. =A0It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associa=
ted
> groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or attempt=
ed
> record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles in t=
he
> eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort. =A0So=
rt of
> a team member thing. =A0This whole kinship thing has been rolling around =
in my
> head as these conversations have unfolded. =A0Of course - I have no idea =
if
> that is true or not...
>
That concept works for me. Except that kinship may not be so much for
record breakers as it is for sailors. Period.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have stated
>that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the Australians?
Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
this thread.
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/14/sailor-abby-sunderlands-dad-signed-reality-doomed-voyage/
> http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-sunderland-s-mom-u-s-taxpayers-should-pay-for-rescue
>
> Just a kid chasing a dream ...
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
Sure, I like this part:
The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
$300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian Ocean.
In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot the bill.
"We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.
On Jun 16, 2:21=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another si=
de
> > of it. =A0It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other
> > associated groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breaker=
s
> > (or attempted record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider
> > their roles in the eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution =
to
> > that effort. =A0Sort of a team member thing. =A0This whole kinship thin=
g has
> > been rolling around in my head as these conversations have unfolded. =
=A0Of
> > course - I have no idea if that is true or not...
>
> You seem to have an open mind about this. =A0I'm not sure that is allowed
> here.
>
> You do have a point though. =A0Just as the local volunteer fire departmen=
ts
> have a lot of dedicated people, they also have a few really gung ho types
> that would rescue a beetle from a mountaintop just so they can be a part =
of
> it.
True that about certain firefighters...They'll get that look in their
eyes just thinking about the science and adrenaline. Tom
Upscale wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
>> stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
>> Australians?
>
> Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
> responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
> which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
> this thread.
Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side of
it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or attempted
record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles in the
eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort. Sort of
a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has been rolling around in my
head as these conversations have unfolded. Of course - I have no idea if
that is true or not...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just a kid chasing a dream ...
Well, obviously we can't have *that*.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/14/sailor-abby-sunderlands-dad-signed-reality-doomed-voyage/
>> http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
>> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-sunderland-s-mom-u-s-taxpayers-should-pay-for-rescue
>>
>> Just a kid chasing a dream ...
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>
> Sure, I like this part:
> The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
> $300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian
> Ocean. In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot the
> bill.
> "We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.
>
>
Likely to stay that way now.
On 6/15/2010 10:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/14/sailor-abby-sunderlands-dad-signed-reality-doomed-voyage/
>>
>> http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
>> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-sunderland-s-mom-u-s-taxpayers-should-pay-for-rescue
>>
>>
>> Just a kid chasing a dream ...
>>
>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>
> Sure, I like this part:
> The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
> $300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian
> Ocean. In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot
> the bill.
> "We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.
The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have stated
that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the Australians?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:347e7eec-7b6c-4fda-97cf-6ef37bf15ad3@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 11:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
> >> stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
> >> Australians?
>
> > Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
> > responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
> > which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
> > this thread.
>
> Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side
> of
> it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
> groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or
> attempted
> record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles in
> the
> eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort. Sort
> of
> a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has been rolling around in
> my
> head as these conversations have unfolded. Of course - I have no idea if
> that is true or not...
>
That concept works for me. Except that kinship may not be so much for
record breakers as it is for sailors. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth. But in this instance some of the sailors are not amused. Worth
looking at again:
http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2010-06-14&dayid=439
On 6/16/2010 1:49 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:347e7eec-7b6c-4fda-97cf-6ef37bf15ad3@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 11:39 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
>> >> stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
>> >> Australians?
>>
>> > Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
>> > responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
>> > which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
>> > this thread.
>>
>> Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another
>> side of
>> it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
>> groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or
>> attempted
>> record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles
>> in the
>> eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort.
>> Sort of
>> a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has been rolling around
>> in my
>> head as these conversations have unfolded. Of course - I have no idea if
>> that is true or not...
>>
>
> That concept works for me. Except that kinship may not be so much for
> record breakers as it is for sailors. Period.
There's a saying in the Coast Guard: "You have to go out. You don't
have to come back."
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
> Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side
> of it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other
> associated groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers
> (or attempted record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider
> their roles in the eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to
> that effort. Sort of a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has
> been rolling around in my head as these conversations have unfolded. Of
> course - I have no idea if that is true or not...
You seem to have an open mind about this. I'm not sure that is allowed
here.
You do have a point though. Just as the local volunteer fire departments
have a lot of dedicated people, they also have a few really gung ho types
that would rescue a beetle from a mountaintop just so they can be a part of
it.