dumbass paddler
Mike Sullivan
kid.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959610a11.html
If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
and been a dad for his young son.
What a cowardly pissant.
martin+x@y.z
>
> If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
> and been a dad for his young son.
Couldn't agree more.
>From the article:
"When his kayak was found without an immersion suit" <snip>
"his family confirmed last night that he had not been carrying one."
"RCCNZ spokesman Lindsay Sturt said a man could survive in 15 degrees
celsius weather and large swells for about 12 hours."
I wonder what they are smoking down there. Or, maybe their definition
of the word "survive" is different than mine. Attempting to do
something like that without proper gear is a guarantee to win a Darwin
award.
The part that I don't get is that the guy seems to have lots of
experience pushing the limits. See his site:
http://www.andrewmcauley.com/index.html
I can't see attempting this trip with a "consumer" kayak. Anyhow, a
very sad and pointless loss. Particularly if you think of his kid.
-Martin
paul_v...@hotmail.com
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959610a11.html
>
> > If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
> > and been a dad for his young son.
>
> Couldn't agree more.
>
> >From the article:
>
> "When his kayak was found without an immersion suit" <snip>
> "his family confirmed last night that he had not been carrying one."
>
> "RCCNZ spokesman Lindsay Sturt said a man could survive in 15 degrees
> celsius weather and large swells for about 12 hours."
>
> I wonder what they are smoking down there. Or, maybe their definition
> of the word "survive" is different than mine. Attempting to do
I think they meant if in an immersion suit. At least that makes it
seem more reasonable.
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've posted before but they do not seemed to have appeared.
Your arrogance is unbelievable Mike, you stand in judgment
of a man and his love for his son based on an article you've
read on the Net.
Do a search, you are sure to find a picture of Andrew McAuley's
kayak. Note the picture of his son taped to the deck were he
could see it for every one of those 1,500km plus he paddled.
Do some research Mike and you'll find that he was anything but a
"dumbass", you might start with http://www.nswseakayaker.asn.au/
and make a donation while you at it.
If anyone is a pissant coward it's you Mike, attacking the reputation
of a dead man you know next to nothing about.
Tim Wise
Tim.J...@gmail.com
Read the site and check the news a bit more carefully Martin, read and
learn.
Andrew McAuley had a great deal of experience in paddling particularly
cold water.
He had completed 850kms along the Antarctic peninsular. Photographs
recovered
from a memory stick on his boat indicates he was wearing a full length
cortex drysuit
and lifejacket for the entire trip. After covering 1,500km through
three very intense
gales he is believe to have perished approximately 65kms from his
destination in
comparatively calm water. We will probably never know what happened
exactly.
Andrew had spent 10 years planning and training for this attempt, it
was not some
light hearted whim. Like most humans he was focused on being alive,
not dieing
even though it comes to us all.
As for the consumer grade kayak. I don't think so. Although similar in
appearance it
has been valued at about 4 time the cost of an off-the-shelf kayak.
The kid's name is Finlay McAuley, how about making a difference and go
here
http://www.nswseakayaker.asn.au/
I'm sure you can work it.
Tim Wise
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171424968.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
I know this. He sets out over the world's most dangerous waters
in a kayak ill equipped to handle the job, for selfish reasons
that have nothing to do with making the world a better place
or his family safer or better off. He put rescue people in harms
way for his ill advised stunt, who also have family to support.
I read through the site as you requested. Typically, it is
a group of adventurers who get their ya yas out of putting
themselves into situations that have less to do with athletic
achievement, and more to do with lucking out of extreme
disaster by the ebbs and flows of weather patterns. I'm not
impressed.
Raising a family takes a man who understands responsibility
to himself and to his children. It's one thing to be a selfish
thrill seeker as a single person, or as one who's family is
well grown, quite another to deliberately court death
for fame when kids are involved who need time with their
dad over a couple decades.
More heroic to me is the guy who died in an industrial
accident working his ass off, or the guy in a commute car
mangled in a car accident trying to make money for his
family. Where is his heroic website?
I stand by my judgement. He's a s***head waste of
a human being. Screw him.
Mike
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171424968.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:16 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> It wouldn't warrant a comment except the guy has a little
> >> kid.
>
> >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959610a11.html
>
> >> If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
> >> and been a dad for his young son.
>
> >> What a cowardly pissant.
>
> > I've posted before but they do not seemed to have appeared.
> > Your arrogance is unbelievable Mike, you stand in judgment
> > of a man and his love for his son based on an article you've
> > read on the Net.
>
> > Do a search, you are sure to find a picture of Andrew McAuley's
> > kayak. Note the picture of his son taped to the deck were he
> > could see it for every one of those 1,500km plus he paddled.
>
> > Do some research Mike and you'll find that he was anything but a
Mike you are entitled to you opinion of adventurers just as much
as much as the next man. I think standing judgement of a man's love
for his son is stretching you authority a bit too far. You seem to
have quite a few issues
with people who do anything outside the norm.
How many have lost parent/loved ones through smoking related diseases?
By your reckoning if they loved us enough they would have stopped so
they could spend longer lives with us. Life and and the consquences
of free will are not that straight forward.
I agree with you there are many "quiet" heroes bringing up their
families and working
their arses off just to survive. If there is any monument to their
courage and sacrifice
it would be their children's lives.
I certainly hope the world takes a more charitable view of you than
you have of others.
Tim W
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171425874....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 8:18 am, "marti...@y.z" <martin.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959610a11.html
>>
>> > If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
>> > and been a dad for his young son.
snipo
> Read the site and check the news a bit more carefully Martin, read and
> learn.
Round three....
I googled around and found the cowardly little bitch's own
personal site:
http://www.andrewmcauley.com/index.html
Not one mention in his self-promoting dreck of climbing
and kayaking about his son. Find it? I didn't.
The more I learn about him, the more shameful he is.
Remember, this isn't a site about kayaking, it's not a site about
climbing, its a site about Andrew Macauley and how
wonderful he is and how to get him to come give an inspirational
speech.
Again, I got no problem with kooks like this:
http://kayakwendy.blogspot.com/
She's welcome to her wilderness adventures, she's not hurting
anybody and it's all a big shrug, hey go hug
an orca sweet pea....
Guys who willfully abandon their kids are no heroes.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171432099.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 4:18 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171424968.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
snip
> Mike you are entitled to you opinion of adventurers just as much
> as much as the next man. I think standing judgement of a man's love
> for his son is stretching you authority a bit too far. You seem to
> have quite a few issues
> with people who do anything outside the norm.
bull. I have issues with selfish people who willfully endanger
others for self promotion, and abandon their family in the
process.
I'm making it a case on RSR because of the hype over ocean
crossing in rowing boats.
I know surfers who have paddled out to 30 foot swells in norcal
here with nobody knowing they went out, and nobody the wiser
if they lived or died. They didn't have kids to support, they had
their selfish reasons for doing which is their own business.
They didn't carry any kind of alert to make somebody come after
them if they got buried under the reef.
>
>
> How many have lost parent/loved ones through smoking related diseases?
> By your reckoning if they loved us enough they would have stopped so
> they could spend longer lives with us. Life and and the consquences
> of free will are not that straight forward.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, can raise their kids to maturity before
they die, something that can't be said for this 'adventurer'.
>
> I agree with you there are many "quiet" heroes bringing up their
> families and working
> their arses off just to survive. If there is any monument to their
> courage and sacrifice
> it would be their children's lives.
It wouldn't have been much for him to back off of his suicidal
ambitions for 18 years or so, keep selling his struggle gear
or go get a job selling New South Wales real estate, and still
get out and do some challenging kayak trips.
You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
>
> I certainly hope the world takes a more charitable view of you than
> you have of others.
Whatever. I bet I have more heroes that I admire than you do. My current
hero is Lou. Lou lives in my town, was a college baseball player, in his
40s with three kids. He drives a potato chip truck on a route, gets up
at 4:00 am, drives around god forsaken places stocking stores with
chips, and is home by 2:30 pm. He coaches all his kids' sports team,
takes
his daughter to dance classes, and assistant coaches the high school
baseball team.
His family is the most important thing to him. That's what real
men do, Tim.
Tim.J...@gmail.com
Hello Mike, it's truly amazing the amount of anger and vitriol that
the death
of someone you don't know has stirred up. You seem to be traveling
with
a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
Tim W
Alistair Potts
>
> You seem to be traveling with
> a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
There's a joke in there somewhere for Lou... Although 4am might not be
the time to make it.
I felt sick seeing the picture of his wife and boy: my boy's the same
age. The self-serving rubbish he spouts here:
http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/national/mcauley/index.html
made me want to punch my monitor.
Apparently he "was named Australian Geographic magazine's adventurer of
the year in 2005". To my mind that's a complete travesty of "adventure".
Because it's so HARD to be an adventurer now, we confuse it with just
being high risk. He didn't discover anything new; he didn't help our
understanding of anything; he didn't go anywhere people hadn't been
before. We've confused the METHOD with the GOAL. It's the David Blaine
lock-me-in-a-perspex-box school of thought.
Shackleton, for instance, was an adventurer, and in trying to discover
new things did everything possible to minimize the risk to himself and
his gang. Of course he too ended up in a tiny boat in the middle of the
ocean, but only after he'd decided it was the only possible way to
survive. These guys are adventurers. But if you're only spin on going
somewhere is to do it in the most dangerous way possible, you're not an
adventurer, you're a twat. I don't care if you've got an immersion suit,
flares or whatever - you're in a tiny boat in the middle of the ocean
voluntarily: it's utterly moronic.
There ARE proper adventures to be had - e.g. only last month pot-holers
discovered a new and enormous set of caverns in England. I'm sure that
took real bravery and real risks, but it's the result that makes the
discoverers real adventurers. Steve Irwin too didn't lark around with
crocs and stingrays just because it was dangerous: he was a proper
adventurer too, I reckon.
A
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171444757....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:21 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171432099.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
snip
> Hello Mike, it's truly amazing the amount of anger and vitriol that
> the death
> of someone you don't know has stirred up. You seem to be traveling
> with
> a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
This is RSR, Tim, chips are cheap, even big ones.
Mike Sullivan
"Alistair Potts" <alistair.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45d2f009$0$22120$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
> Tim.J...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 5:21 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> My current
>>> hero is Lou. Lou lives in my town, was a college baseball player, in
>>> his
>>> 40s with three kids. He drives a potato chip truck on a route, gets up
>>> at 4:00 am, drives around god forsaken places stocking stores with
>>> chips, and is home by 2:30 pm. He coaches all his kids' sports team,
>>> takes
>>> his daughter to dance classes, and assistant coaches the high school
>>> baseball team.
>
>>
>> You seem to be traveling with
>> a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
>
> There's a joke in there somewhere for Lou... Although 4am might not be the
> time to make it.
lol. Took me a minute..... Definite "double-take". :^)
KC
> It wouldn't have been much for him to back off of his suicidal
> ambitions for 18 years or so, keep selling his struggle gear
> or go get a job selling New South Wales real estate, and still
> get out and do some challenging kayak trips.
>
> You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
>
>> I certainly hope the world takes a more charitable view of you than
>> you have of others.
>
> Whatever. I bet I have more heroes that I admire than you do. My current
> hero is Lou. Lou lives in my town, was a college baseball player, in his
> 40s with three kids. He drives a potato chip truck on a route, gets up
> at 4:00 am, drives around god forsaken places stocking stores with
> chips, and is home by 2:30 pm. He coaches all his kids' sports team,
> takes
> his daughter to dance classes, and assistant coaches the high school
> baseball team.
>
> His family is the most important thing to him. That's what real
> men do, Tim.
>
I'm struggling with this one, Mike. While I completely understand and
agree to some extent with your point/perspective on this, there are
exceptions and "gray areas" in my mind.
A very good friend of mine named Don taught me much of what I know about
whitewater kayaking and rafting. I've been on many "adventure" trips
with him. He is also one of the Dads I know whom I respect the most (as
are you, Mike) -- he does a TON for his kids, and works his ass off
teaching HS math to pay the bills.
However, he is an adventurous sole, and loves the outdoors. He and I
have gone on several risky whitewater trips that served no purpose other
than our own enjoyment of physical exertion in Nature's playground. He
and I also did some mountaineering in So.Cal together, and he's done a
lot of this kind of thing on his own, too.
Is he a bad father to risk his own life just for his own enjoyment of
the endeavor? Have you been sculling or surfing by yourself lately?
What if something happened to you? Sure you take all necessary
precautions, and you are a strong, fit swimmer, but you NEVER KNOW when
a rogue wave or boat could hit you and send you down. Likewise, I take
risks in the activities I enjoy doing, and they don't all involve my
family, often I need to do my own solo activities for peace of mind, I
think most of us can relate to that.
To take it a point further, what ABOUT those Dads who commute in
dangerous traffic to make a living? Couldn't they get a job closer to
home? Do you Mike, really need to commute 110+ miles one-way to work?
Seems like it might be somewhat of an unnecessary risk, given that
driving on US freeways is one of the riskiest things that anyone can do.
Now, I say that, having done the same thing myself -- I commuted 110
miles for most of last year, and often on those drives I wondered how
you do it (and why). You needn't answer, it's your own business.
But I do have mixed feelings about this "adventurer" who got killed, and
where do we draw the line between risks that are okay to take (I could
die every time I go skiing or mountain biking or kayaking) and ones that
are not, and are only "self serving" as you say? If I "need" to go
mountain biking to stay fit and sane, is that an unreasonable risk?
This guy was doing what he loved, AND maybe making a living at it (I
presume this is how he made some of his money?)
No answers, but I don't think it's as black and white as you say.
Respectfully,
-Kieran
ze...@zekehoskin.com
wrote:
Hey Mike. "Irresponsible" I'll buy. "Cowardly" doesn't seem to apply.
And peeing on his head now doesn't achieve much.
If you want to start a campaign of calling *living* extreme
adventurers cowards in public, you might conceivably have some effect
on people who are considering irresponsible actions. Good luck if you
do. // Zeke
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:eqvekm$dnu$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
snip
> I'm struggling with this one, Mike. While I completely understand and
> agree to some extent with your point/perspective on this, there are
> exceptions and "gray areas" in my mind.
>
> A very good friend of mine named Don taught me much of what I know about
> whitewater kayaking and rafting. I've been on many "adventure" trips with
> him. He is also one of the Dads I know whom I respect the most (as are
> you, Mike) -- he does a TON for his kids, and works his ass off teaching
> HS math to pay the bills.
>
> However, he is an adventurous sole, and loves the outdoors. He and I have
> gone on several risky whitewater trips that served no purpose other than
> our own enjoyment of physical exertion in Nature's playground. He and I
> also did some mountaineering in So.Cal together, and he's done a lot of
> this kind of thing on his own, too.
I thought I was pretty clear, I do not say that once you
are a dad, you avoid risk. Indeed, Don needs to be who
he is to be a good dad.
Kayaking down a 4.0, or some of the places I've body
surfed are definitely some dangerous places, but the difference
is the challenge is made completely within the realm of your
skills and ability to minimize risk.
The seas between Tasmania and NZ are some of the
most treacherous on earth. The variance in the threat is
not dependent upon the paddler's skill, but on the conditions.
An example is Mt Shasta where on a good weather week,
hundreds of climbers can plant their virtual flags on top without
incident, place looks like a conga line.
If bad weather moves in for a long period of time, nobody
makes it out alive.
>
> Is he a bad father to risk his own life just for his own enjoyment of the
> endeavor? Have you been sculling or surfing by yourself lately? What if
> something happened to you? Sure you take all necessary precautions, and
> you are a strong, fit swimmer, but you NEVER KNOW when a rogue wave or
> boat could hit you and send you down. Likewise, I take risks in the
> activities I enjoy doing, and they don't all involve my family, often I
> need to do my own solo activities for peace of mind, I think most of us
> can relate to that.
>
> To take it a point further, what ABOUT those Dads who commute in dangerous
> traffic to make a living? Couldn't they get a job closer to home? Do you
> Mike, really need to commute 110+ miles one-way to work? Seems like it
> might be somewhat of an unnecessary risk, given that driving on US
> freeways is one of the riskiest things that anyone can do. Now, I say
> that, having done the same thing myself -- I commuted 110 miles for most
> of last year, and often on those drives I wondered how you do it (and
> why). You needn't answer, it's your own business.
I made the very point, KC. There's risk in everything we do. There's
wonderful dads who are cops and firemen who engage in extreme risk.
The point I rail against is risk for risk's sake and for personal fame when
there are greater responsibilities at stake.
I make the trip because my wife wanted to live in a rural area to raise
our kids. Even while here, I bike to and from the boat, that is certainly
a risk - especially on wet grey mornings.
But the risk is taken to go to work where outstanding science
is being done, and to make money for my family.
As to my bodysurfing. I don't bsurf the wedge anymore, and on purpose
for the very reasons I stated. It's risk for risks sake just for
grandstanding.
I can practice and improve my bodysurfing skills just as readily on hollow
tubes at 15 street. Yes there's a risk, of course, but the wedge is
inevitable physical failure when you do it enough. Some of
the places I've bsurfed are very sharky, but I don't go out alone
anymore, I make sure other surfers are around.
As to sculling. I haven't been sculling on the lake this winter,
water temps had been under 40 and I'm by myself.
Last winter I swam in 48 degree water with no wetsuit
just to remind myself what it felt like.
>
> But I do have mixed feelings about this "adventurer" who got killed, and
> where do we draw the line between risks that are okay to take (I could die
> every time I go skiing or mountain biking or kayaking) and ones that are
> not, and are only "self serving" as you say? If I "need" to go mountain
> biking to stay fit and sane, is that an unreasonable risk? This guy was
> doing what he loved, AND maybe making a living at it (I presume this is
> how he made some of his money?)
>
> No answers, but I don't think it's as black and white as you say.
I don't think it's black and white either, but eventually as you slide
through the grey areas you should be able to recognize when
it's black.
This is black, even while you have to slide through a wide
grey area to get there.
Here are some questions that help me decide.
1. Is success in the challenge dependent largely on the skills and
experience acquired?
IOW, is the risk fatal to both novice and expert at such a high rate that it
doesn't
matter?
2. Is the risk taken balanced by reward in advancing your skills, or
providing
for your family?
3. Is the fame and personal glory dependent mostly on the risk itself, and
how
likely is the risk of ruin?
If it's very likely that weather will demolish any small boat in those
straits, and you
are depending on a scant chance that the weather won't come up, then you
are simply rolling dice.
Hope that explains my vitriol more. Good questions, kc
Mike
Mike Sullivan
<ze...@zekehoskin.com> wrote in message
news:1171472321.0...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 12:16 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> It wouldn't warrant a comment except the guy has a little
>> kid.
>>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/3959610a11.html
>>
>> If the guy really wanted some adventure he'd have stuck around
>> and been a dad for his young son.
>>
>> What a cowardly pissant.
>
> Hey Mike. "Irresponsible" I'll buy. "Cowardly" doesn't seem to apply.
> And peeing on his head now doesn't achieve much.
I chose the word carefully, zeke. It runs against the grain normally
thought of of extreme adventurers who can never be accused
of cowardice even when they fail, or if they change their minds
about a particular challenge and choose not to go out.
Let's suppose our paddler made it through this adventure
safely to his great fame and adulation. What next? A yet
bigger more dangerous challenge that has more risk of ruin
and less control? To me, that doesn't look like discipline but
a pathology. The courage comes in breaking up the pathology
for the good of your kid, not following it lemminglike over the
cliff.
As to pissing, this is usenet after all.
>
> If you want to start a campaign of calling *living* extreme
> adventurers cowards in public, you might conceivably have some effect
> on people who are considering irresponsible actions. Good luck if you
> do. // Zeke
If the only ppl affected is themselves, I could care less, they're welcome
to it.
BTW, zeke. If when I drove home this week I decided to stop
at a pub and get liquoured up s***faced and jumped in my
truck and drove 100 mph the 100 miles home from there
where I take myself out in flames on a barrier in Santa Rosa
would it be ok to call me a dumbass, or am I some kind
of tragic hero?
I vote for dumbass.
mike
martin+x@y.z
As a proud (and sleep-less due to one being a newborn) father of three
kids I understand where Mike is coming from. I think of them before
making some decisions. Once you have a kid you must live for them.
Your life should now have a new meaning and focus.
Kids need their parents --both of them-- for a long time. Once you
become a parent that old "meaning of life" question is answered almost
instantly. Before that you can kill yourself in a hundred different
ways and, for the most part, it won't mean much. Have a kid or two,
and the contex changes dramatically.
That does not mean that you don't get to enjoy the things you love to
do. It means that you temper your actions and decisions by placing
their best interest first whenever possible. In the case of our
intrepid kayaker, it would have made not one bit of difference in
terms of his accomplishment to have one or two well-eqquiped sea-
worthy escort/safety boats come along for the ride. After all, it
took ten years to plan this thing, right? What he wasn't man enough
to have a safety boat with him?
That's just one example. I also red that he capsized a number of
times. Polynesian outriggers have been around for a long, long time.
I wouldn't even consider such a crossing without an independently
stable craft (meaning outriggers are a must). I don't care how much
the kayak cost, it wasn't the right craft and configuration for such a
crossing, whether he made it or not. Bravado and luck don't make it
right.
If, in a few years, you asked his kid if he would have prefered to
have Dad around, the answer will be a resounding "yes". If you then
added: "That would have required your father having to give-up
extremely dangerous adventures". Could you think of any kid in the
world who would turn around and say something like: "OK, then, it's
OK that Dad killed himself, 'cause he was doing what he wanted to
do". C'mon folks!
While it is sad that the guy ended-up dead, you can only blame it on
utter stupidity. This wasn't an accident, like running over a sharp
object, blowing out a tire and crashing into a concrete barrier. No,
he knew that his family could loose him over this "adventure" and
still, willingly got into that crummy little kayak to "fight" 30 foot
swells alone, without any escort or safety boat to keep him alive for
his kid and family. That's just plain idiotic and as inconsiderate as
one can get. He wasn't a hero, this guy was a complete idiot. As
perfect as they get. Sorry.
I know it isn't politically correct to have or voice such an opinion.
If you have a family, look at them tonight and ask yourself if you
would consider subjecting them to that sort of pain for the sake of
making a senseless crossing on a little boat.
It's interesting that there are some who's hearts bleed for this sort
of nonsense. Just like the guys who die every year trying to climb
Everest and leave kids and families behind for no good reason
whatsoever.
I'm with Mike on this one, 100%. I get it.
-Martin
martin+x@y.z
> learn.
This isn't very complicated. He wanted to make a 1,500Km solo trip in
a little boat; traversing some of the most dangerous water on the
planet. He obviously didn't care enough about his loved ones to be
man enough to take (a) a propoer craft and (b) appropriate rescue/
escort/safety boat. If he didn't think that his family was important
enough to shelf this stupid idea, why should I, a complete stranger
now care?
> Andrew had spent 10 years planning and training for this attempt, it
> was not some
> light hearted whim.
Ten years is a long time to come up with such a bad plan.
> As for the consumer grade kayak. I don't think so. Although similar in
> appearance it
> has been valued at about 4 time the cost of an off-the-shelf kayak.
Cost has nothing to do with it. I've been in horrific seas in very,
very well equipped 35 ft sailboats. When I was single I was quite
fond of single-handed sailing -even at night- all over the California
waters. I loved sailing in weather conditions that'd make everyone
come running for the safety of the marina. I know just how bad things
can get out there in a very robust craft. And, back twenty years ago,
it absolutely loved the danger and the challenge. And I say this
knowing full well that I have not experienced the whole spectrum of
what the ocean can throw your way.
Trying trying to make the Tasmanian crossing on a little kayak,
without a safety escort is simply not sensible. It's not even
heroic. It's just dumb bravado. I'm sure it will be done and I am
sure that similar crossings have been done. Still, that does not make
it sensible. Not for a family man, anyway.
> The kid's name is Finlay McAuley, how about making a difference and go
> herehttp://www.nswseakayaker.asn.au/
>
> I'm sure you can work it.
His dad didn't care enough about him not to kill himself. Why should
I care? I'd rather give money to support my local firemen and police
who risk their lives coming to the aid of members of their local
communities. I know some of them personally and they are all
outstanding human beings. They don't take risks to be famous or for
nonsensical reasons.
Anyhow, I disagree with your feelings towards this person. Let's
leave it at that. If he was a personal friend, I'm sorry for your
loss. Perhaps you should have advised him against what he did?
-Martin
Mike Sullivan
"martin+x@y.z" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171484323.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I can see that this is a difficult call for some.
>
> As a proud (and sleep-less due to one being a newborn) father of three
> kids I understand where Mike is coming from. I think of them before
> making some decisions. Once you have a kid you must live for them.
> Your life should now have a new meaning and focus.
An anecdote to demonstrate my own dumbassness:
When my first was born, I was playing hoops twice a week at
a local gym with a bunch of good friends. My bride and
I were doing the natural birth thing, and I was supposed to
be a good coach. My poor bride started contractions and
they continued for nearly 40 hrs. We walked, went back
home, came back to hospital, went to her folks place,
tried some pizza, walked walked walked, tried to sleep.
Labor continued (not progressed) until tuesday night
which was my basketball night. All day Tuesday I'm thinking
"I hope kid pops out today so I can get to hoops tonight"
Game starts at 6:30. It's 6:00 pm, doc decided to give
my bride a sedative to sleep because she was so exhausted.
What does this a-hole think? "oh boy, she's going to sleep
a few hours, I can go play hoops and come back".
He gives her something, she relaxes and starts to doze
and I'm gathering to leave. Before I can get out, she
starts up with heavy contractions, and they check and
she'd finally started dilating more. Baby's coming. "s***",
I think, "I got to get to hoops".
I look back pretty shamefully at the way I must have
looked, trying to get out the door, one foot in one foot
out. Of course, I did the right thing, and was happy to
be there when Brenna was born. But if she dozed for
about 2 minutes more I would have been gone.
It wasn't until we were sent home and I was in the driver
seat and Brenna was in the car seat behind us that
some dim understanding grew in my brick of a brain.
Here's the conversation I still remember:
I looked at my bride and said:
me: "what the f*** are we supposed to do now?"
she: "I have no idea. I don't know how to raise kids".
me: "What idiocy possesses this hospital to let us be responsible for this
little baby?"
There was no great revelation, but gradually I came to realize
as I got to know my daughter over the next couple weeks the
tremendous way it changed my views and perspective.
It was sort of a slow motion bitch slap.
"shape up you idiot"
I suspect most of us guys are pretty stupid about this stuff, it
takes us a little while to 'get it'. But we do, most of us.
Yes, I still play ball, still row, still surf, still have a few beers,
have lots of friends. It's just that a couple other people
come first - pretty simple actually.
Mike
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
Round 4 Mike.
> bull. I have issues with selfish people who willfully endanger
> others for self promotion, and abandon their family in the
> process.
>
Who did he endanger Mike? The search and rescue teams?
"fraid not. Andrew disappeared in relatively calm conditions.
His boat was discovered by a PC3 on radar and recovered by
a cruise ship, on the video the ocean looked almost glass.
As for self promotion his crossing barely received mention
until it came unstuck. As for abandoning his family you'd have
to ask them.
> I'm making it a case on RSR because of the hype over ocean
> crossing in rowing boats.
What hype? Ocean Rowing is even more invisible than flat water rowing.
Unlike Olympic type rowing Ocean Rowing doesn't have National sports
bodies
or lotteries supporting their activities. Of course they have to
attract sponsors
and give them something for their money. They are not obliged to pimp
their families as well.
(Although you would have had to of been blind to read Andrew's site
and not see that he had a son)
>
> I know surfers who have paddled out to 30 foot swells in norcal
> here with nobody knowing they went out, and nobody the wiser
> if they lived or died. They didn't have kids to support, they had
> their selfish reasons for doing which is their own business.
>
> They didn't carry any kind of alert to make somebody come after
> them if they got buried under the reef.
>
>
>
> > How many have lost parent/loved ones through smoking related diseases?
> > By your reckoning if they loved us enough they would have stopped so
> > they could spend longer lives with us. Life and and the consquences
> > of free will are not that straight forward.
>
> Smokers, heavy drinkers, can raise their kids to maturity before
> they die, something that can't be said for this 'adventurer'.
So it's ok to be irresponsible provided you kick the bucket
once your kids hit 18? Once again I'll point out Andrew
planned to cross the Tasman, not commit suicide as
you continually suggest. That's why this event has hit his friend
so hard, he was almost there.
>
>
>
> > I agree with you there are many "quiet" heroes bringing up their
> > families and working
> > their arses off just to survive. If there is any monument to their
> > courage and sacrifice
> > it would be their children's lives.
>
> It wouldn't have been much for him to back off of his suicidal
> ambitions for 18 years or so, keep selling his struggle gear
> or go get a job selling New South Wales real estate, and still
> get out and do some challenging kayak trips.
>
> You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
Andrew actually had a very good job in IT.
As for killing yourself in your 50's and 60s, statiscally
we are not all going to make it that far. Is an old life worth less
than a young life?
>
>
>
> > I certainly hope the world takes a more charitable view of you than
> > you have of others.
>
> Whatever. I bet I have more heroes that I admire than you do. My current
> hero is Lou. Lou lives in my town, was a college baseball player, in his
> 40s with three kids. He drives a potato chip truck on a route, gets up
> at 4:00 am, drives around god forsaken places stocking stores with
> chips, and is home by 2:30 pm. He coaches all his kids' sports team,
> takes
> his daughter to dance classes, and assistant coaches the high school
> baseball team.
>
> His family is the most important thing to him. That's what real
> men do, Tim.
Well Mike I'm happy that you have so many people to look up to.
Maybe one of them will teach you a bit of tolerance and compassion
and understanding one day. Lou sounds like a great guy, I'm guessing
I won't find him slagging a dead man on the Net or delivering a
lecture on what real men do.
Tim W
Carl Douglas
> I can see that this is a difficult call for some.
<Just like the guys who die every year trying to climb
> Everest and leave kids and families behind for no good reason
> whatsoever.
>
> I'm with Mike on this one, 100%. I get it.
>
There's every reason to do difficult & dangerous things, provided you
take all reasonable safety measures.
I see no point in bravado - the "look no hands" trick - with the safety
net mostly missing. What's gained by increasing the chance of death &
misery? It's as daft as Russian Roulette.
It should be OK to be stupid, & irresponsible - if we only endanger
ourselves. Maybe it's OK to divorce your family in that terminal way -
if they're well covered & accepted the risks (can a kid know such
risks?). But if you get it wrong & others _have_ to risk themselves
trying to save you, then it has gone too far. And if, when they call
off the search when all realistic hope is gone (& search & rescue never
quit while hope remains), they're emotionally blackmailed to spend more
time & money & to risk their lives further in a hopeless search, that's
beyond the pale.
Do any of us know what really drove this guy? I'm not sure we should
lay into him too hard. I have 2 friends who were mad sods but now drive
wheelchairs. They couldn't have lived in society without crazy outlets
for their madness. They don't moan about what has happened, & are still
pretty mad, & fun to be with (for short periods!). Let's accept that
such people are a part, probably a necessary part, of the human spectrum.
However, what if anyone who adventures without reasonable safety cover
is deemed to have declined rescue? We might get rather fewer madcap
adventurers, & more or the rest would take better precautions. Suppose
emergency services refused help unbelted car crash victims - might that
affect driving habits?
Still, I'm desperately sad for the kid & his mum. Dad doubtless
convinced them it'd all be great, & deluded himself that they'd cope if
it wasn't. He wasn't trying to harm anyone, just indulging in fringe
behaviour. The pity is when the bad habits of crap journalism turn the
story into emotional hype, both before & after. Then others are tempted
to be even more stupid.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171490982.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:21 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
> Round 4 Mike.
>
>> bull. I have issues with selfish people who willfully endanger
>> others for self promotion, and abandon their family in the
>> process.
>>
> Who did he endanger Mike? The search and rescue teams?
> "fraid not. Andrew disappeared in relatively calm conditions.
> His boat was discovered by a PC3 on radar and recovered by
> a cruise ship, on the video the ocean looked almost glass.
Yes. Search and rescue. They went out looking for
his body. That is always a dangerous operation,
and had weather been bad wouldn't have stopped the
rescue attempt.
>
> As for self promotion his crossing barely received mention
> until it came unstuck. As for abandoning his family you'd have
> to ask them.
That's their business. I'm keeping it to usenet.
>
>> I'm making it a case on RSR because of the hype over ocean
>> crossing in rowing boats.
>
> What hype? Ocean Rowing is even more invisible than flat water rowing.
> Unlike Olympic type rowing Ocean Rowing doesn't have National sports
> bodies
> or lotteries supporting their activities. Of course they have to
> attract sponsors
> and give them something for their money. They are not obliged to pimp
> their families as well.
> (Although you would have had to of been blind to read Andrew's site
> and not see that he had a son)
I was. I saw it in the insert, the photo was part of the
"still waiting" blurb which looked like the one where the
wife and kid were waiting for rescue reports...
So, I apologize for that.
>>
>> I know surfers who have paddled out to 30 foot swells in norcal
>> here with nobody knowing they went out, and nobody the wiser
>> if they lived or died. They didn't have kids to support, they had
>> their selfish reasons for doing which is their own business.
>>
>> They didn't carry any kind of alert to make somebody come after
>> them if they got buried under the reef.
>>
>>
>>
>> > How many have lost parent/loved ones through smoking related diseases?
>> > By your reckoning if they loved us enough they would have stopped so
>> > they could spend longer lives with us. Life and and the consquences
>> > of free will are not that straight forward.
>>
>> Smokers, heavy drinkers, can raise their kids to maturity before
>> they die, something that can't be said for this 'adventurer'.
>
> So it's ok to be irresponsible provided you kick the bucket
> once your kids hit 18? Once again I'll point out Andrew
> planned to cross the Tasman, not commit suicide as
> you continually suggest. That's why this event has hit his friend
> so hard, he was almost there.
I think age of kids makes a huge difference. Frankly, kids need
us less and less as they mature.
I got a question, Tim. If Andrew had committed suicide,
would you think differently?
Would you be disgusted with him?
Just like there are shades between risks that are reasonable,
there are shades between high risk and suicide.
snip
>> You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
>
> Andrew actually had a very good job in IT.
Insurance too, I hope.
>
> As for killing yourself in your 50's and 60s, statiscally
> we are not all going to make it that far. Is an old life worth less
> than a young life?
It's a matter of being able to adjust priorities when you
have small children. Understand, without his having kids and
forcing rescue personnel to have to scramble, what extreme
risk takers do is no concern of mine.
Furthermore, I understand his desire for Mad Jack adventures
and think it reasonable to pursue at some other time.
There's certainly no reason why he couldn't continue
distance paddling and climbing, sounds like something
he could have shared with his son someday.
oops.
snip
>> His family is the most important thing to him. That's what real
>> men do, Tim.
>
> Well Mike I'm happy that you have so many people to look up to.
> Maybe one of them will teach you a bit of tolerance and compassion
> and understanding one day. Lou sounds like a great guy, I'm guessing
> I won't find him slagging a dead man on the Net or delivering a
> lecture on what real men do.
Probably not, that's another reason why he's admirable.
I imagine I can add Tim to the list of "people who won't be
buying a beer for Sully when he's in town"
damn
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er02fh$s99$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> martin+x@y.z wrote:
>> I can see that this is a difficult call for some.
> <snip>
>
snip
> Do any of us know what really drove this guy? I'm not sure we should lay
> into him too hard. I have 2 friends who were mad sods but now drive
Here's what his wife blogged after he turned back the
first time:
"Andrew's effort has been applauded by veteran Tasmanian sea kayakers. He
made a responsible decision in difficult circumstances, and had no reliance
on external resources. This is the kind of self-sufficient adventure that
we'd like to see more of in today's society. Well done Andrew!"
So there's a bit of denial going on, self-reliant until it's too late.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hell, I'd buy you both a round and sit back and watch, or referee,
whichever were needed. [;o)
Having seen my parents go through the trauma of the death of my
sister, I pretty much decided that it is always better for the parents
to die before their children, though this situation sure doesn't seem
quite right.
Every year we have a number of folks that require rescue/recovery off
of Mount Rainier, and fortunately for them there are nearby Military
bases that look at it as an opportunity for training, sometimes they
end up needing rescue of their own, when things go wrong. So rescue
opperations are indeed prone to risks equal to the endeavor in the
first place.
Overall it looks like anyone is free to be an "adventurer" right up to
the point they get themselves killed, presumably by accident. Then
they are fair game for Monday morning quarterbacks who have the
benefit of 20/20 hindsight, all part of the risk.
When we watch the guy walk a tightrope over Niagra falls, it's the
anticipation of something going wrong that is the spectacle isn't it,
otherwise he could put on some tights and walk down the sidewalk for
all we care.
A couple years ago a guy videotaped his wife plunging from the top of
El Capitan right into the rocks, using borrowed equipement (because
the park rangers would have confiscated it if caught doing the
prohibitted BASE jump). It's tough to imagine him thinking later "She
died doing something she loved." (apparently more than me... DOH!) -
YMMV
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171495434....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 2:51 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> I imagine I can add Tim to the list of "people who won't be
>> buying a beer for Sully when he's in town"
>>
>> damn
>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hell, I'd buy you both a round and sit back and watch, or referee,
> whichever were needed. [;o)
I suspect Tim knows Andrew, I believe Tim is from Victoria.
Therefore, I don't blame him for being pretty pissed off,
and if we get the chance, I'll give him a free shot
at me.
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
[snip]
> > Who did he endanger Mike? The search and rescue teams?
> > "fraid not. Andrew disappeared in relatively calm conditions.
> > His boat was discovered by a PC3 on radar and recovered by
> > a cruise ship, on the video the ocean looked almost glass.
>
> Yes. Search and rescue. They went out looking for
> his body. That is always a dangerous operation,
> and had weather been bad wouldn't have stopped the
> rescue attempt.
SAR were not in any danger, the initial search aircraft,a PC3 is a
large multi engined
aircraft with quite a good safety record. Conditions were relatively
calm and good visibility,
that's how they were able to confirm Andrew was not with the boat. The
SAR in NZ were
very particular about the weather, the search on the second day was
delayed until the light
conditions made a search worthwhile.
This compares to 1998 when almost all the Sydney to Hobart Fleet got
in to trouble and
a large number of rescues were performed in hellish conditions. It
would have been more than
reasonable for the SAR services to refuse to launch but they did not.
>
>
>
> > As for self promotion his crossing barely received mention
> > until it came unstuck. As for abandoning his family you'd have
> > to ask them.
>
> That's their business. I'm keeping it to usenet.
It is their business Mike, but your having a good crack
at making yours as well.
>
>
>
> >> I'm making it a case on RSR because of the hype over ocean
> >> crossing in rowing boats.
>
> > What hype? Ocean Rowing is even more invisible than flat water rowing.
> > Unlike Olympic type rowing Ocean Rowing doesn't have National sports
> > bodies
> > or lotteries supporting their activities. Of course they have to
> > attract sponsors
> > and give them something for their money. They are not obliged to pimp
> > their families as well.
> > (Although you would have had to of been blind to read Andrew's site
> > and not see that he had a son)
>
> I was. I saw it in the insert, the photo was part of the
> "still waiting" blurb which looked like the one where the
> wife and kid were waiting for rescue reports...
>
> So, I apologize for that.
>
>
Apology noted.
>
>
>
>
> > So it's ok to be irresponsible provided you kick the bucket
> > once your kids hit 18? Once again I'll point out Andrew
> > planned to cross the Tasman, not commit suicide as
> > you continually suggest. That's why this event has hit his friend
> > so hard, he was almost there.
>
> I think age of kids makes a huge difference. Frankly, kids need
> us less and less as they mature.
>
You have children Mike, I'll take the advice.
> I got a question, Tim. If Andrew had committed suicide,
> would you think differently?
>
> Would you be disgusted with him?
No Mike, I would not be disgusted.
It would still be a tragic loss.
Suicide is never the answer.
>
> Just like there are shades between risks that are reasonable,
> there are shades between high risk and suicide.
>
> snip
>
> >> You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
>
> > Andrew actually had a very good job in IT.
>
> Insurance too, I hope.
>
>
>
> > As for killing yourself in your 50's and 60s, statiscally
> > we are not all going to make it that far. Is an old life worth less
> > than a young life?
>
> It's a matter of being able to adjust priorities when you
> have small children. Understand, without his having kids and
> forcing rescue personnel to have to scramble, what extreme
> risk takers do is no concern of mine.
Rescue personnel aren't forced to do what they do.
They do it because they find it rewarding,and they make the choice
to take the risks. Sometimes they don't come home to their families
which
is a tragedy. Our emergency services and defence personnel all make
choices
that certainly increase the chances that they won't come home to their
families.
An argument for these jobs to be done by single people? But then
someone
loses a son, a daughter.
>
> Furthermore, I understand his desire for Mad Jack adventures
> and think it reasonable to pursue at some other time.
>
> There's certainly no reason why he couldn't continue
> distance paddling and climbing, sounds like something
> he could have shared with his son someday.
>
If only.
> oops.
>
> snip
>
> >> His family is the most important thing to him. That's what real
> >> men do, Tim.
>
> > Well Mike I'm happy that you have so many people to look up to.
> > Maybe one of them will teach you a bit of tolerance and compassion
> > and understanding one day. Lou sounds like a great guy, I'm guessing
> > I won't find him slagging a dead man on the Net or delivering a
> > lecture on what real men do.
>
> Probably not, that's another reason why he's admirable.
>
Amen to that.
> I imagine I can add Tim to the list of "people who won't be
> buying a beer for Sully when he's in town"
>
> damn
> Mike
Is it a long list? Probably not too hard to get on I would imagine.
I think I can manage a beer or two for a man who cherishes his family
so dearly.
Tim W
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Mr McAuley is from Sydney about 900km away
I knew of him. Never met personally and now never will.
Me pissed off? How can you tell?
I prefer a robust discussion to a free shot.
Tim W
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171497191.5...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> I got a question, Tim. If Andrew had committed suicide,
>> would you think differently?
>>
>> Would you be disgusted with him?
>
> No Mike, I would not be disgusted.
> It would still be a tragic loss.
>
> Suicide is never the answer.
Why wouldn't it depend on the question? I'm no fan
of suicide but can imagine it as beneficial as extreme
risk taking by selfish fathers.
Glibness aside, there isn't something someone can do
that you might openly condemn, except for someone
condemning others?
What if he decided to abandon his son and wife and become
a amphetamine freak?
Tragic?
>>
>> Just like there are shades between risks that are reasonable,
>> there are shades between high risk and suicide.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> You can always kill yourself in your 50s and 60s!!!
>>
>> > Andrew actually had a very good job in IT.
>>
>> Insurance too, I hope.
>>
>>
>>
>> > As for killing yourself in your 50's and 60s, statiscally
>> > we are not all going to make it that far. Is an old life worth less
>> > than a young life?
>>
>> It's a matter of being able to adjust priorities when you
>> have small children. Understand, without his having kids and
>> forcing rescue personnel to have to scramble, what extreme
>> risk takers do is no concern of mine.
>
> Rescue personnel aren't forced to do what they do.
> They do it because they find it rewarding,and they make the choice
> to take the risks. Sometimes they don't come home to their families
> which
> is a tragedy. Our emergency services and defence personnel all make
> choices
> that certainly increase the chances that they won't come home to their
> families.
> An argument for these jobs to be done by single people? But then
> someone
> loses a son, a daughter.
No I'd make no such argument at all. Cops and rescue people
and surfers and skiiers should all have kids if they want.
Rescue is a bit of a thrill seeking job, and many of us have engaged
in it on a volunteer basis. I have.
But the point from the very first was not risk avoidance, but
priorities.
Take two guys and Niagara Falls. One guy jumps in the water
with the intent of committing suicide. The other jumps in for the
thrill and hope of surviving it. There is a chance of survival you know.
The whole point of the paddle was this was such a threatening stretch
of water that it was well known(among the kook paddle bunch) to be
an incredible accomplishment. The problem remains that the survival
depends more on luck than skill.
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171497757.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 10:39 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I knew of him. Never met personally and now never will.
Send the family some tragedy money,
and an inspirational note to the kid.
What might that note say?
"I admired your father for showing the world that there's
a lot more to life than just being a father to you"
"I hope you follow in his footsteps"
"He's a rare unselfish rugged individual who is to be
admired"
If we work on it we can think of something!
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Suicide is never the answer.
>
> Why wouldn't it depend on the question? I'm no fan
> of suicide but can imagine it as beneficial as extreme
> risk taking by selfish fathers.
>
Glibness aside, your right. Depends on the question.
If you are dying of an incurable disease, fair enough.
If you are depressed, unhappy, not coping with life
then it is not the answer. Neither the good nor the bad times last
forever,
things change, often there is another chance to make a life for
yourself.
> Glibness aside, there isn't something someone can do
> that you might openly condemn, except for someone
> condemning others?
>
More than likely, it's a pretty natural tendency in most people.
Not always helpful.
> What if he decided to abandon his son and wife and become
> a amphetamine freak?
>
> Tragic?
>
>
The loss of life whether self inflicted or from outside forces
is usual tragic. I've been to very few happy funerals where the
family was at peace.
>
> No I'd make no such argument at all. Cops and rescue people
> and surfers and skiiers should all have kids if they want.
>
> Rescue is a bit of a thrill seeking job, and many of us have engaged
> in it on a volunteer basis. I have.
>
> But the point from the very first was not risk avoidance, but
> priorities.
>
> Take two guys and Niagara Falls. One guy jumps in the water
> with the intent of committing suicide. The other jumps in for the
> thrill and hope of surviving it. There is a chance of survival you know.
>
> The whole point of the paddle was this was such a threatening stretch
> of water that it was well known(among the kook paddle bunch) to be
> an incredible accomplishment. The problem remains that the survival
> depends more on luck than skill.
I assume by the paddle kook bunch you mean sea kayaking community?
Their skills and boats may be different to rowers but I feel that is
no reason
to look down your nose at them. They probably have a far keener sense
of
on water safety than you average rower.
You are definitely not giving credit were credit is due, if it was a
matter of luck
this trip would have been over in the first gale.
BTW Tasman crossing is less than half the distance/time of some other
long distance kayak voyages.
Tim W
Charles Carroll
> and been a dad for his young son.
Mike,
You're talking about love in action. This guy is love in dreams.
Cordially,
Charles
Nick Suess
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171497757.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hell, I'd buy you both a round and sit back and watch, or referee,
>> > whichever were needed. [;o)
>>
>> I suspect Tim knows Andrew, I believe Tim is from Victoria.
>>
>> Therefore, I don't blame him for being pretty pissed off,
>> and if we get the chance, I'll give him a free shot
>> at me.
>
> Mr McAuley is from Sydney about 900km away
>
> I knew of him. Never met personally and now never will.
>
I might well be the one person on this entire planet who knows both Tim and
Mike personally, and would like to be a considered a friend of both. I know
that both care passionately about rowing, but clearly have a different take
on this issue. I've spent more time with Mike, and been an occasional guest
in his home as well a beer buddy in his local tavern. I have seen how
acutely safety conscious he is in the running of his two rowing clubs at
Bair Island and Clear Lake. In this instance he comes from the position of
responsible parenthood, and has certainly done the hard yards himself in the
raising of two fine kids who must by now be moving out of their teens - I
figure Brenna already has, and Connor is close to it.
I suppose we have to evaluate what risk-taking activities are reasonable for
a parent and what aren't, or we'd never leave our homes. For my own part,
when my one child was small, I quit motorcycling following one near miss
episode involving a careless truckie. I concluded that the risk to my life
due to the reckless inattention of others was something I couldn't possibly
evaluate, but was certainly high enough to be no longer acceptable now I was
a father. But I continued to fly small aeroplanes, I guess because the
containment of risk lay fundamentally in my own hands. And I am a highly
responsible pilot, especially when others place their lives in my hands by
travelling as my passengers. That is actually something I still find an
awesome responsibilty, even more so when those passengers are children. I am
meticulous in my efforts to minimise risk, and that I feel is Sul's point of
contention here. I haven't bothered expending my time on McAuley's website,
but it sounds like he almost did the reverse, going to pains to make the
crossing more risky and take on the open sea ill-prepared as an act of
stupid bravado. The lack of an immersion suit would seem to bear this out.
Martin xyz has offered this as good reason to nominate him for a Darwin
award, Sul has called him a dumbass. He certainly seems nobody's idea of a
hero.
Tim.J...@gmail.com
> stupid bravado. The lack of an immersion suit would seem to bear this out.
> Martin xyz has offered this as good reason to nominate him for a Darwin
> award, Sul has called him a dumbass. He certainly seems nobody's idea of a
> hero.
Hello Nick, although not wearing and immersion suit he was wearing a
cortex
dry suit and used in Antarctic kayaking expeditions. While not the
same as
an immersion suit it performs a very similar function. Having worn an
immersion
suit I would say you chances of paddling in one are very limited and
not much chance
of wet exiting. Andrew McAuley did go to a lot or trouble to prepare
which is borne out
by the fact that he covered 1500km over the Tasman sea.
Tim W
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171506724.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 11:30 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Suicide is never the answer.
>>
>> Why wouldn't it depend on the question? I'm no fan
>> of suicide but can imagine it as beneficial as extreme
>> risk taking by selfish fathers.
>>
>
> Glibness aside, your right. Depends on the question.
> If you are dying of an incurable disease, fair enough.
> If you are depressed, unhappy, not coping with life
> then it is not the answer. Neither the good nor the bad times last
> forever,
> things change, often there is another chance to make a life for
> yourself.
I'm trying to goad you into making a judgement, Tim.
That's what I've done and expressed it.
We can rationalize suicide like we can rationalize
suicidal risk, it's a very fine line. The choices in
suicide for me are very different for a father than
for a single dude. I have a friend that committed suicide
by hiking very deep into the wilderness, killing himself
and then letting the animals scatter his remains. He
got his affairs in order, and left a note explaining his
reasoning, and had mailed a note to the park rangers
saying there is no way they'll find him or be able to find
his remains so don't bother.
If he'd had a kid I would not have respected it.
>
>> Glibness aside, there isn't something someone can do
>> that you might openly condemn, except for someone
>> condemning others?
>>
>
> More than likely, it's a pretty natural tendency in most people.
> Not always helpful.
I think there are more and more people venturing into this
area of extreme adventurism, extreme risk. I believe
in making value judgements about it. There are people who
are determined enough to get themselves in situations that
will kill other people trying to rescue them when they fail.
I think we should judge them, and find a methodology
for that judgement.
One thing that frosts me is that Andrew was a climber. Climbers
have a very solid ethic of buddy system and commitment
to the rescue of each other. It's a community that stands
ready to go out to help each other and doesn't depend on
people outside that community to pull them out of danger.
Indeed, that quote I put that out by Andrew's wive depicted
some phony baloney bogus self-reliance that was almost sick.
Screw her too!
>
>> What if he decided to abandon his son and wife and become
>> a amphetamine freak?
>>
>> Tragic?
>>
>>
> The loss of life whether self inflicted or from outside forces
> is usual tragic. I've been to very few happy funerals where the
> family was at peace.
Pain~= tragedy
I have trouble defining tragedy but I know it when I see it.
When my mom died it wasn't tragic. If I die tonight it won't be
tragic. When a friend's 8 yr old son died of an aneurism that
was tragic. When a guy in nearby Pescadero sent his 9
yr old daughter up into a plane to sent a long distance cross
country flying record, that was tragic (and he was criminally
insane).
snip
>> The whole point of the paddle was this was such a threatening stretch
>> of water that it was well known(among the kook paddle bunch) to be
>> an incredible accomplishment. The problem remains that the survival
>> depends more on luck than skill.
>
> I assume by the paddle kook bunch you mean sea kayaking community?
> Their skills and boats may be different to rowers but I feel that is
> no reason
> to look down your nose at them. They probably have a far keener sense
> of
> on water safety than you average rower.
perhaps. There is little skill to sea kayaking, Tim. People rent
boats and go out the same day. They throw on life jackets
and wetsuits and have at it.
A SF chronicle writer paddled down the coast of California from Oregon
and wrote an article in the paper about it. He'd never paddled
before and made the whole trip. He was guided, it was a great
trip, a great read.
But when you compare the rowing and sea kayaking communities
you are talking about very different set of goals.
The rowers aren't intentionally seeking out harsh
conditions, but will tend to look past them to achieve
better rowing. You have certainly not seen any apology
from me about lack of rowing safety and I'm
on record as being very critical of myself on rowing
safety here on RSR.
Keep in mind I was just as harsh on the rowing community
that killed people on the Potomac a couple years back.
>
> You are definitely not giving credit were credit is due, if it was a
> matter of luck
> this trip would have been over in the first gale.
Tim I read the account. I've never tried to sleep in a kayak
before, but I would know enough to try it in cold water
before setting out on a crossing. His first crossing he turned
back because he figured out he couldn't sleep in the
bottom of his kayak because it was too cold.
Gaddam, that's stupid. What if he had good weather his first
two days out until he was in open ocean until he figured that out?
This wasn't a test run along the coast, he was trying his first
Tasman crossing and all the little toadie bullshit paddlers were
lauding him for his 'sense of safety'.
Get a grip, man, these people are stupid.
>
> BTW Tasman crossing is less than half the distance/time of some other
> long distance kayak voyages.
Like I said, it's luck.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Nick Suess" <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:45d3ccbb$0$24724$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...snip
>> I knew of him. Never met personally and now never will.
>>
> I might well be the one person on this entire planet who knows both Tim
> and Mike personally, and would like to be a considered a friend of both. I
> know that both care passionately about rowing, but clearly have a
> different take on this issue. I've spent more time with Mike, and been an
> occasional guest in his home as well a beer buddy in his local tavern. I
> have seen how acutely safety conscious he is in the running of his two
> rowing clubs at Bair Island and Clear Lake. In this instance he comes from
> the position of responsible parenthood, and has certainly done the hard
> yards himself in the raising of two fine kids who must by now be moving
> out of their teens - I figure Brenna already has, and Connor is close to
> it.
Brenna is a sophomore at UC Santa Cruz and on the UCSC
swim team. I'm immensely proud of that girl. This spring
she's applying for a job as a surf lifeguard. She qualifies with
an open ocean swim and a run/swim/run competition.
She ran my paddling water safety program at Clear Lake last year and she
won't this year. Not even I could replace her.
Connor is now a junior at Kelseyville HS. He's in the K-corps which
is a search and rescue school organization. He loves it. They learn
rescue, communications, first aid, CPR, and are on call by the
Sheriff's dept and Fire to go into the nearby ample wildernesses to
find lost people. They're an outstanding school organization. He
also in on cross country team, swims on swim team, rows/paddles
in the summer, and plays in the school jazz band. Grades are good.
We're working on rebuilding a 914 porsche and constructing an
electric truck.
You bet I'm proud of him too.
I judge myself way more harshly than I judge Andrew Macauley,
believe me.
>
> I suppose we have to evaluate what risk-taking activities are reasonable
> for a parent and what aren't, or we'd never leave our homes. For my own
> part, when my one child was small, I quit motorcycling following one near
> miss episode involving a careless truckie. I concluded that the risk to my
> life due to the reckless inattention of others was something I couldn't
> possibly evaluate, but was certainly high enough to be no longer
> acceptable now I was a father. But I continued to fly small aeroplanes, I
> guess because the containment of risk lay fundamentally in my own hands.
> And I am a highly responsible pilot, especially when others place their
> lives in my hands by travelling as my passengers. That is actually
> something I still find an awesome responsibilty, even more so when those
> passengers are children. I am meticulous in my efforts to minimise risk,
> and that I feel is Sul's point of contention here. I haven't bothered
> expending my time on McAuley's website, but it sounds like he almost did
> the reverse, going to pains to make the crossing more risky and take on
> the open sea ill-prepared as an act of stupid bravado. The lack of an
> immersion suit would seem to bear this out. Martin xyz has offered this as
> good reason to nominate him for a Darwin award, Sul has called him a
> dumbass. He certainly seems nobody's idea of a hero.
Still we should be very grateful to Tim for arguing the point as it
allowed us to continue and expand the thread.
That's what RSR is for!
Mike
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171509351.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
snip
> of wet exiting. Andrew McAuley did go to a lot or trouble to prepare
> which is borne out
> by the fact that he covered 1500km over the Tasman sea.
I tried to figure out how it was that his first crossing was
turned back because he didn't know you couldn't sleep in
the bottom of a kayak because of lack of insulation.
why does he figure this out on his first crossing attempt
and not on a test run somewhere close to help?
This is no complicated difficult problem.
Mike
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171506724.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:30 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Suicide is never the answer.
>
> >> Why wouldn't it depend on the question? I'm no fan
> >> of suicide but can imagine it as beneficial as extreme
> >> risk taking by selfish fathers.
>
> > Glibness aside, your right. Depends on the question.
> > If you are dying of an incurable disease, fair enough.
> > If you are depressed, unhappy, not coping with life
> > then it is not the answer. Neither the good nor the bad times last
> > forever,
> > things change, often there is another chance to make a life for
> > yourself.
>
> I'm trying to goad you into making a judgement, Tim.
To what end Mike?
> I think there are more and more people venturing into this
> area of extreme adventurism, extreme risk. I believe
> in making value judgements about it. There are people who
> are determined enough to get themselves in situations that
> will kill other people trying to rescue them when they fail.
>
> I think we should judge them, and find a methodology
> for that judgement.
Yes, but perhaps not Judge and Jury based on google results
and what you've read on the net.
>
> One thing that frosts me is that Andrew was a climber. Climbers
> have a very solid ethic of buddy system and commitment
> to the rescue of each other. It's a community that stands
> ready to go out to help each other and doesn't depend on
> people outside that community to pull them out of danger.
That may have been the case in the past. There has been more than
one incident of people being left to die on Everest by their climbing
buddies.
>
> Indeed, that quote I put that out by Andrew's wive depicted
> some phony baloney bogus self-reliance that was almost sick.
>
> Screw her too!
>
>
You really have got it in for this family.
A gross over simplification.
>
> A SF chronicle writer paddled down the coast of California from Oregon
> and wrote an article in the paper about it. He'd never paddled
> before and made the whole trip. He was guided, it was a great
> trip, a great read.
>
> But when you compare the rowing and sea kayaking communities
> you are talking about very different set of goals.
>
> The rowers aren't intentionally seeking out harsh
> conditions, but will tend to look past them to achieve
> better rowing. You have certainly not seen any apology
> from me about lack of rowing safety and I'm
> on record as being very critical of myself on rowing
> safety here on RSR.
>
Does nothing require any skill other than flat water rowing?
> Keep in mind I was just as harsh on the rowing community
> that killed people on the Potomac a couple years back.
>
>
Your stance on safety is noted Mike, somewhat ahead of your time.
>
> > You are definitely not giving credit were credit is due, if it was a
> > matter of luck
> > this trip would have been over in the first gale.
>
> Tim I read the account. I've never tried to sleep in a kayak
> before, but I would know enough to try it in cold water
> before setting out on a crossing. His first crossing he turned
> back because he figured out he couldn't sleep in the
> bottom of his kayak because it was too cold.
>
> Gaddam, that's stupid. What if he had good weather his first
> two days out until he was in open ocean until he figured that out?
>
> This wasn't a test run along the coast, he was trying his first
> Tasman crossing and all the little toadie bullshit paddlers were
> lauding him for his 'sense of safety'.
>
> Get a grip, man, these people are stupid.
>
If you are trying to enlighten people Mike
toning down the abuse might help.
>
>
> > BTW Tasman crossing is less than half the distance/time of some other
> > long distance kayak voyages.
>
> Like I said, it's luck.
> Mike
What would you like to see, a blanket ban on this activity?
Peer review? Self insurance for rescue?
Tim W
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171519583.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 4:39 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171506724.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
snip
>>
>> I'm trying to goad you into making a judgement, Tim.
>
> To what end Mike?
toward coming to an understanding. I make
judgements on Andrew, you make judgements
on my judgements. I'm trying to see if you'll
also have opinions on this situation other than
'it's sad'.
It's sad for the kid, for sure, stupid by the adults.
>
>> I think there are more and more people venturing into this
>> area of extreme adventurism, extreme risk. I believe
>> in making value judgements about it. There are people who
>> are determined enough to get themselves in situations that
>> will kill other people trying to rescue them when they fail.
>>
>> I think we should judge them, and find a methodology
>> for that judgement.
>
> Yes, but perhaps not Judge and Jury based on google results
> and what you've read on the net.
we go with what we got, Tim. That's usenet.
I read that site and a host of other paddling sites that
were similar. I'm around ppl all the time who paddle and race in
open ocean in outriggers and surf skis.
I spend a lot of time in ocean, have sailed and have lots
of water time. I work with a 5.6 climber who regularly
does every kind of overnight ascent there is.
Anybody who has more information than the net has
to offer is welcome to chip in.
>>
>> One thing that frosts me is that Andrew was a climber. Climbers
>> have a very solid ethic of buddy system and commitment
>> to the rescue of each other. It's a community that stands
>> ready to go out to help each other and doesn't depend on
>> people outside that community to pull them out of danger.
>
> That may have been the case in the past. There has been more than
> one incident of people being left to die on Everest by their climbing
> buddies.
Yes. Did you read about that? I certainly did. It's a huge
controversy in the climbing community, and the surges of
people making hapless ascents on major mountains is a big
issue with them. Many climbers are disgusted with the half
baked 'fantasy camp' type ascents.
But the climbing culture is decades ahead of the adventure
paddlers. They've skipped about 20 steps.
>>
>> Indeed, that quote I put that out by Andrew's wive depicted
>> some phony baloney bogus self-reliance that was almost sick.
>>
>> Screw her too!
>>
>>
> You really have got it in for this family.
If a wife allowed her husband to drive drunk and claimed
he was a better driver at 2.5 alchohol than everybody that
was sober and killed himself on the drive, what would
you say?
Observation.
>>
>> A SF chronicle writer paddled down the coast of California from Oregon
>> and wrote an article in the paper about it. He'd never paddled
>> before and made the whole trip. He was guided, it was a great
>> trip, a great read.
>>
>> But when you compare the rowing and sea kayaking communities
>> you are talking about very different set of goals.
>>
>> The rowers aren't intentionally seeking out harsh
>> conditions, but will tend to look past them to achieve
>> better rowing. You have certainly not seen any apology
>> from me about lack of rowing safety and I'm
>> on record as being very critical of myself on rowing
>> safety here on RSR.
>>
>
> Does nothing require any skill other than flat water rowing?
A great many things do, including paddling. That's the point.
The adventure paddling stuff skips dozens of steps. You can
go out and paddle a bunch and make some treks here and there
and never really know what you're doing or why.
paddling has just enough front end ease and base safety that
can encourage people to do pretty stupid things.
How many of your 'extreme' paddlers could swim 3 miles
in open ocean?
>
>> Keep in mind I was just as harsh on the rowing community
>> that killed people on the Potomac a couple years back.
>>
>>
> Your stance on safety is noted Mike, somewhat ahead of your time.
I'm guilty of some poor safety habits myself and am
willing to be judged as harshly.
snip
>> Get a grip, man, these people are stupid.
>>
> If you are trying to enlighten people Mike
> toning down the abuse might help.
respectfully noted, Tim. Note also I think
I've been respectful to you for arguing with me,
if not I apologize.
I see no reason to tone down the rhetoric in this
case though. It applies to our thinking in rowing very
much, and indeed I'm applying it to the rowing group
and not trying to pick a fight over in paddling groups
or blogging on someone's kayak site.
>
>>
>>
>> > BTW Tasman crossing is less than half the distance/time of some other
>> > long distance kayak voyages.
>>
>> Like I said, it's luck.
>> Mike
>
> What would you like to see, a blanket ban on this activity?
> Peer review? Self insurance for rescue?
Good questions AND answers.
First it would be useful if many of us agreed there was
a problem to solve, though.
For me, people striking out willy nilly into the wilderness
for the sake of striking out willy nilly should be
free to accept their fate without the rest of us intervening,
just like I don't want suicide barriers on the Golden Gate
Bridge.
Go ahead, dive, feed the sharks.
But in the community of athletes and adventurers, we should
judge harshly those who are not pushing the limits, but
simply ignoring them.
If a rower we all knew turned out to have abused his
child, there would be no problem in RSR condemning
him for his abuse. We have a history of a rowing coach
years back who exploited children who was condemned
here on RSR. Anthony didn't abuse his son, but he abandoned
him.
Neglect is a form of abuse, IMHO.
These are two separate issues above, but they happen to
intersect in this paddling case.
Henry Law
> You seem to be traveling with
> a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
Ad hominem attack, the kind with faux pity. Mike wins.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
Jonny
I don't mean to stiffle a good old fashioned debate her, but we are
not arguing about the finer points of technique or the construction of
boats!
We seem to be judging a man we have never met about a topic we know
precious little about (ie crazy adventure kayaking).
Someone is dead. A family is less a member...
*going to my school teacher voice*
....AND CAN YOU TWO CHILDREN PLEASE BE QUIET.
Agree to disagree, ok?
Although I want to I can't shut this down, as can be done on some
forums, but I think we can stop flogging this horse now. It is dead
and the good taste and civility barrier has been passed.
AND I DON'T CARE WHO IS 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG'.
Talk about the route, the design of the kayak - anything except this
mans character and family. A large % of the previous posts have been
bordering on offensive - not what I expect from you guys. Suck it in
and zip it up.
Mike Sullivan
"Henry Law" <ne...@lawshouse.org> wrote in message
news:11715293...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Tim.J...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You seem to be traveling with
>> a fairly large chip on you shoulder I hope you work it out one day.
>
> Ad hominem attack, the kind with faux pity. Mike wins.
Nobody wins here, Henry, or we all do. I think this is worth discussing and
am grateful that Tim has called me out on my provocation.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1171530559.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 3:30 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I don't mean to stiffle a good old fashioned debate her, but we are
> not arguing about the finer points of technique or the construction of
> boats!
>
> We seem to be judging a man we have never met about a topic we know
> precious little about (ie crazy adventure kayaking).
The topic is clearly labeled and easy to ignore and if you
have a computer that is choking on a dozen extra 32k text
posts per day, it's time to move into the 90s!
I pointed out early in the discussion that the reason I brought it up
because
there is a growing group of open ocean (and other open water) rowing
happening so this topic directly relates to safety issues
and decision making processes, and the nature of
our sport.
As to beating a dead horse, I haven't seen a single topic
on RSR (or any other newsgroup) in the
last 3 years that hasn't been discussed here before.
Mike
Tim.J...@gmail.com
Hello Johnny, all I have been arguing for is a little respect and
consideration
for a dead man and his family. I agree it has past the bounds of taste
and decency,
but that was pretty much from the first post.
Thanks for your comments.
Tim W
Tim.J...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The Tasman Sean/Great Southern Ocean conditions would be difficult to
replicate.
If you read his website you will note an entry were his conducted
kayak testing with
Tasmania search and rescue personnel.
Does this address some of your concerns?
Tim W
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171576075.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 4:55 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171509351.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
snip
> The Tasman Sean/Great Southern Ocean conditions would be difficult to
> replicate.
> If you read his website you will note an entry were his conducted
> kayak testing with
> Tasmania search and rescue personnel.
>
> Does this address some of your concerns?
I'll try to be 'gentler' this time.
What sort of testing do you suppose SAR and Andrew did with
his kayak. Any ideas?
I realize this was a website and this is the internet but there
were very few details in there about his planning.
I read everything I could find on his website, maybe I missed
something, but it seems that like I said before, his first attempt
at the Tasman crossing was the one he turned back when he
got too cold trying to sleep in his kayak. In earlier writings about
the Bass Straits crossing he wondered aloud about sleeping in
a standard kayak, and if it could be done. As far as I
could tell from that, he rigged his cockpit to be able to sleep
in it, waited for the weather and went for it.
So this would have been a good plan: Do a distance in the
straits under the watchful eye of a team that allows him
to sleep in his kayak. Pick bad weather.
He had no idea if it was really doable when he set out the
first time. That seems to me to be an example of undisciplined
preparation and planning (is that kinder?).
Tim.J...@gmail.com
>
there is.
>
> Anybody who has more information than the net has
> to offer is welcome to chip in.
>
>
the hub of the universe. If there was a bit more respect
shown to Sea Kayakers it might be worth cross posting to
one of their forums, in the current light it would seem like a troll
>
>
> Yes. Did you read about that? I certainly did. It's a huge
> controversy in the climbing community, and the surges of
> people making hapless ascents on major mountains is a big
> issue with them. Many climbers are disgusted with the half
> baked 'fantasy camp' type ascents.
Still get professional climbers pushing bodies out to get to the
summit of Everest and leaving people behind to die.
Conversely there was the tragic case of a guide who stayed
behind to help a client down the mountain and perished
leaving behind a wife and child.
>
> But the climbing culture is decades ahead of the adventure
> paddlers. They've skipped about 20 steps.
>
See above, maybe their culture is not as advanced as you think.
But we are wandering.
>
>
> >> Indeed, that quote I put that out by Andrew's wive depicted
> >> some phony baloney bogus self-reliance that was almost sick.
>
> >> Screw her too!
>
> > You really have got it in for this family.
>
> If a wife allowed her husband to drive drunk and claimed
> he was a better driver at 2.5 alchohol than everybody that
> was sober and killed himself on the drive, what would
> you say?
>
I'd say it's and extreme and perhaps poor analogy.
>
>
>
>
> >> I have trouble defining tragedy but I know it when I see it.
> >> When my mom died it wasn't tragic. If I die tonight it won't be
> >> tragic. When a friend's 8 yr old son died of an aneurism that
> >> was tragic. When a guy in nearby Pescadero sent his 9
> >> yr old daughter up into a plane to sent a long distance cross
> >> country flying record, that was tragic (and he was criminally
> >> insane).
>
> >> snip
>
> >> perhaps. There is little skill to sea kayaking, Tim. People rent
> >> boats and go out the same day. They throw on life jackets
> >> and wetsuits and have at it.
>
> > A gross over simplification.
>
> Observation.
>
>
I've seen people go from novice to racing in less than a week, does
that make them a
rower?
>
>
>
> >> The rowers aren't intentionally seeking out harsh
> >> conditions, but will tend to look past them to achieve
> >> better rowing. You have certainly not seen any apology
> >> from me about lack of rowing safety and I'm
> >> on record as being very critical of myself on rowing
> >> safety here on RSR.
>
And Sea Kayaker do seek out harsh conditions?
Not necessarily but they do prepare for them.
> > Does nothing require any skill other than flat water rowing?
>
> A great many things do, including paddling. That's the point.
> The adventure paddling stuff skips dozens of steps. You can
> go out and paddle a bunch and make some treks here and there
> and never really know what you're doing or why.
>
> paddling has just enough front end ease and base safety that
> can encourage people to do pretty stupid things.
>
This is a problem, personally I would suggest that you join
a Sea Kayaking Club. Do their training, go on their organized paddles.
> How many of your 'extreme' paddlers could swim 3 miles
> in open ocean?
Depending on conditions, all or none of them.
Depending on wind and tide you may cover 3m or 30km,
possibly not in the direction you would wish.
Much better that they can roll or re-enter and roll up.
>
>
>
> >> Keep in mind I was just as harsh on the rowing community
> >> that killed people on the Potomac a couple years back.
>
> > Your stance on safety is noted Mike, somewhat ahead of your time.
>
> I'm guilty of some poor safety habits myself and am
> willing to be judged as harshly.
>
Will judging make you safer or instruction?
>
> >> Get a grip, man, these people are stupid.
>
> > If you are trying to enlighten people Mike
> > toning down the abuse might help.
>
> respectfully noted, Tim. Note also I think
> I've been respectful to you for arguing with me,
> if not I apologize.
>
Yes Mike, you have been respectful.
Try stretching it just a little further to others
even if you do not agree with their actions
and we might some insight and some resolution
a whole lot faster.
> I see no reason to tone down the rhetoric in this
> case though. It applies to our thinking in rowing very
> much, and indeed I'm applying it to the rowing group
> and not trying to pick a fight over in paddling groups
> or blogging on someone's kayak site.
You do, as Nick pointed out run a very safe rowing facility.
You have a background in water sports and emergency services.
It's probable that you have some valid comments to make on safety,
not much point in losing that in the background of rhetoric.
>
>
>
> >> > BTW Tasman crossing is less than half the distance/time of some other
> >> > long distance kayak voyages.
>
> >> Like I said, it's luck.
> >> Mike
>
> > What would you like to see, a blanket ban on this activity?
> > Peer review? Self insurance for rescue?
>
> Good questions AND answers.
>
> First it would be useful if many of us agreed there was
> a problem to solve, though.
>
> For me, people striking out willy nilly into the wilderness
> for the sake of striking out willy nilly should be
> free to accept their fate without the rest of us intervening,
> just like I don't want suicide barriers on the Golden Gate
> Bridge.
>
> Go ahead, dive, feed the sharks.
>
> But in the community of athletes and adventurers, we should
> judge harshly those who are not pushing the limits, but
> simply ignoring them.
If you had we'd never be here.
>
> If a rower we all knew turned out to have abused his
> child, there would be no problem in RSR condemning
> him for his abuse. We have a history of a rowing coach
> years back who exploited children who was condemned
> here on RSR. Anthony didn't abuse his son, but he abandoned
> him.
>
> Neglect is a form of abuse, IMHO.
>
> These are two separate issues above, but they happen to
> intersect in this paddling case.
I think we are headed for a discussion on how we raise our children
rather than anything to do with water sports.
Possibly time to move the conversation from this group.
Tim W
Jonny
wrote:
> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171530559.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:30 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I don't mean to stiffle a good old fashioned debate her, but we are
> > not arguing about the finer points of technique or the construction of
> > boats!
>
> because
> there is a growing group of open ocean (and other open water) rowing
> happening so this topic directly relates to safety issues
> and decision making processes, and the nature of
> our sport.
>
> As to beating a dead horse, I haven't seen a single topic
> on RSR (or any other newsgroup) in the
> last 3 years that hasn't been discussed here before.
Mike - so discuss the fucking topic then. Don't insult a man you don't
know on a topic you don't fully understand. He might be a dumbass
paddler, but your comments about his family are distasteful and
perhaps show more about you than him. Remember the old saying "don't
speak ill of the dead".
As for RSR over the years I don't ever recall, for one example, anyone
saying Leo Blockley was an idiot. Some of the people who organised his
camp or who tried to cover up/diminish the event later were called
such.
My computer is getting full of trash now - I'm done.
Mike Sullivan
<Tim.J...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171580547.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 6:30 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <Tim.J.W...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171519583.0...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
snip climbing
> But we are wandering.
and you missed my point.
>>
>>
>> >> Indeed, that quote I put that out by Andrew's wive depicted
>> >> some phony baloney bogus self-reliance that was almost sick.
>>
>> >> Screw her too!
>>
>> > You really have got it in for this family.
>>
>> If a wife allowed her husband to drive drunk and claimed
>> he was a better driver at 2.5 alchohol than everybody that
>> was sober and killed himself on the drive, what would
>> you say?
>>
> I'd say it's and extreme and perhaps poor analogy.
I'm guessing you'd think the same thing I do.
I sure wouldn't say "oh poor tragic soul"
snip
>>
> I've seen people go from novice to racing in less than a week, does
> that make them a
> rower?
If they spend time rowing and want to be seen as such,
I got no problem with it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The rowers aren't intentionally seeking out harsh
>> >> conditions, but will tend to look past them to achieve
>> >> better rowing. You have certainly not seen any apology
>> >> from me about lack of rowing safety and I'm
>> >> on record as being very critical of myself on rowing
>> >> safety here on RSR.
>>
> And Sea Kayaker do seek out harsh conditions?
> Not necessarily but they do prepare for them.
This one did. This one definitely. The vast majority do not, and
the vast majority of sea paddlers are not what I would consider
'extreme adventurers'.
>
>> > Does nothing require any skill other than flat water rowing?
>>
>> A great many things do, including paddling. That's the point.
>> The adventure paddling stuff skips dozens of steps. You can
>> go out and paddle a bunch and make some treks here and there
>> and never really know what you're doing or why.
>>
>> paddling has just enough front end ease and base safety that
>> can encourage people to do pretty stupid things.
>>
> This is a problem, personally I would suggest that you join
> a Sea Kayaking Club. Do their training, go on their organized paddles.
Please. It's down the list after fishing and before golf.
Honestly, take a stab at what they have to offer me. I've seen them
at La Jolla Pt and east side Santa Cruz and Half Moon bay when I've been
out
bsurfing, I've observed beginner classes put on by clubs in
SF Bay and Newport, and have been around competitive open
ocean paddlers and sprint paddlers. I've logged a good many
miles in k-1s and in surfskis on my big lake, I'm pretty sure
I can put two and two together.
>
>
>> How many of your 'extreme' paddlers could swim 3 miles
>> in open ocean?
>
> Depending on conditions, all or none of them.
> Depending on wind and tide you may cover 3m or 30km,
> possibly not in the direction you would wish.
> Much better that they can roll or re-enter and roll up.
Being able to swim in open water for a distance gives you a
water awareness and relaxation that is a huge safety
benefit both in and out of the boat. It's not about
being able to 'swim yourself to safety' necessarily, but
being adaptable to the worst happening.
It would be part of training at some point, I'd think.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Keep in mind I was just as harsh on the rowing community
>> >> that killed people on the Potomac a couple years back.
>>
>> > Your stance on safety is noted Mike, somewhat ahead of your time.
>>
>> I'm guilty of some poor safety habits myself and am
>> willing to be judged as harshly.
>>
> Will judging make you safer or instruction?
The stupid things I've done don't come from lack of instruction
but lack of attention and discipline.
snip to:
> I think we are headed for a discussion on how we raise our children
> rather than anything to do with water sports.
his having a kid was why we're here. Else it
wouldn't have caught my attention or ire.
mike
Mike Sullivan
> On Feb 16, 12:50 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
snip
> Mike - so discuss the fucking topic then. Don't insult a man you don't
> know on a topic you don't fully understand. He might be a dumbass
> paddler, but your comments about his family are distasteful and
> perhaps show more about you than him. Remember the old saying "don't
> speak ill of the dead".
I cited an article that praised his courage and unique adventurous
spirit. Then flamed it and him. It's what we do here sometimes, I think
that mostly gets more attention than reasoned friendly flowery
posts.
You know, there are some advantages to being a crotchety old
man. Women don't look at you like they did not so long
ago, young guys don't listen to your sage advice, your kids make
fun of your confusion when you can't find your keys, nothing
you do is athletic anymore no matter how much you want to
train and how many other old farts you beat at it.
So you get to be crotchety. You get to say what you
think, callsarnya....
>
> As for RSR over the years I don't ever recall, for one example, anyone
> saying Leo Blockley was an idiot. Some of the people who organised his
> camp or who tried to cover up/diminish the event later were called
> such.
If someone does something idiotic - ok by you if we call
him a dumbass on RSR?
If not, what do we do, call them a courageous adventurous
poetic loving soul???
How nice!
Jonny
wrote:
> If someone does something idiotic - ok by you if we call
> him a dumbass on RSR?
>
> If not, what do we do, call them a courageous adventurous
> poetic loving soul???
I'm not sure if any other football code has the same phrase, but in
AUS we talk about some one "playing the man instead of the ball". This
means to attack the person, rather than the issue.
This guy probably was a 'dumbass paddler' and we could discuss the
merits of his equipment, course, safety plan and so on for hours.
Fine.
However, when someone suggests that this guy didn't care about his
family and was selfish to deny his son a father by pursuing what we
percieve (with NO knowledge of endurance kayaking) to be crazy goals,
then that is playing the man.
Half of what you have been saying (about the actual exercise of
endurance kayaking) is fine. The other half about this guys character
and family has been nasty and calous.
I happen to agree with the idea that kayaking to New Zealand is a
pretty dumb thing to do (without a support vessel), but I'm not going
to comment on this guys family.
If you can manage to separate the two issues, then that is a big step
for you.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Hey, all you who know a whackjob risk taker, oops, "adventurer", if
they really need a rush, how about hopping out of a plane in
mountainous terrain with only a snowboard strapped to their feet (a
parachute would be cheating themselves), and landing on a suitable
slope.
Then they will have an idea about as close as possible to what the
Space shuttle Astronauts go through. Except for the "Sitting on top
of a Rocket built by the lowest bidder and hearing 4 - 3 - 2 -
1...."
Cheers!
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
> On Feb 16, 9:33 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> If someone does something idiotic - ok by you if we call
>> him a dumbass on RSR?
>>
>> If not, what do we do, call them a courageous adventurous
>> poetic loving soul???
snip
> If you can manage to separate the two issues, then that is a big step
> for you.
I was very clear with what the issue was, though it's
ok if you want to simply talk about me, I love
to talk about me.
It was because
he had family, particularly a young son, that invoked
my harsh words. I can't get any of you tools to admit
that a dad who runs himself into a bridge abutment at
100 mph and .23 alcohol is a complete a-hole either.
Carl Douglas
Not only does he leave his own family bereaved & maybe deprived. Also
he may kill or maim others, & some poor sod has to go out & scrape up
the mess, & maybe someone has to mend the bridge, & the crash will screw
up the day for lots of others, some of whom may end up traumatised. & he
wastes public funds (yours & mine). But he does provide employment for
others, & he certainly showed everyone how irresponsible you can get.
Mmmm.
I see strongly-held & honourable views on both sides which won't be
reconciled here. They're held by folk all of whom I respect. I'm
unhappy about how this canoeist went to meet his maker, but I do
understand that some folk are driven by a demon within (aren't we all?).
At certain times we do need those who will take horrendous risks, & at
then we call them heroes. But in quieter times such single-minded
adventurousness needs its outlets, sometimes goes wrong, & that's how we
arrived at this thread.
This guy didn't mean it to go wrong, but he just had to do it. IME
those who man emergency services do not have a great fondness for madcap
adventurers, but tolerate them, & some rescuers are in it for the
adrenaline rush too. Fortunately he only killed himself, & it would
have been much harder to handle had his folly caused deaths among his
rescuers. IMHO it was a bloody pointless exercise, but we all do stupid
things - including rowing.
I think, to put this into perspective, this is a very fringe event which
gives the rest of us precious few lessons or concerns, except sadness
for the kid & wife & extended family of a charismatic & possibly
somewhat nutty guy.
What really upsets me is when people - who are not brave & not at
physical risk themselves - go for their own selfish reasons & make
administrative decisions which hide safety information & endanger the
lives of others in an otherwise very safe sport. And when those people
lie & cover up afterwards, they make me sick at heart.
Why not let this discussion drop? But let's continue to work for a
better safety framework in a growing sport. What do we do about bass
boats, Mike?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Carl Douglas
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er4vd6$mij$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171607771....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On Feb 16, 9:33 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If someone does something idiotic - ok by you if we call
>>>>him a dumbass on RSR?
>>>>
>>>>If not, what do we do, call them a courageous adventurous
>>>>poetic loving soul???
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>>If you can manage to separate the two issues, then that is a big step
>>>for you.
>>
>>
>> I was very clear with what the issue was, though it's
>> ok if you want to simply talk about me, I love
>> to talk about me.
>>
>> It was because
>> he had family, particularly a young son, that invoked
>> my harsh words. I can't get any of you tools to admit
>> that a dad who runs himself into a bridge abutment at
>> 100 mph and .23 alcohol is a complete a-hole either.
>>
>>
>>
> I agree that a dad who drives as pissed as a fart is a complete turd.
see, that wasn't so hard to say... :^)
> Why not let this discussion drop? But let's continue to work for a better
> safety framework in a growing sport. What do we do about bass boats,
> Mike?
Make sure the paint job matches the truck that pulls it, and
has complementary color schemes with your fishing outfit.
If you prefer the camo gear for sneaking up on the fish,
keep your boat and truck painted in dark primary flat colors,
no metal fleck or colorfully deep clear coated tones.
"my other truck is a Harley", and "eagles make good eatin'"
are the only allowable bumper stickers...
Mike
Jonny
wrote:
> It was because he had family, particularly a young son, that invoked
> my harsh words.
You were out of line in your comments about his family and his love
for them. Still are. I don't need to quote you back to yourself.
Separate issue to the dumbass paddling.
> I can't get any of you tools to admit
> that a dad who runs himself into a bridge abutment at
> 100 mph and .23 alcohol is a complete a-hole either.
That is a no brainer. Of course we agree with that.
Jonny
last photo from the guys camera. In AUS newspapers on weekend.
Mike Sullivan
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172491314.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/25/1172338469233.html?from=top5
>
> last photo from the guys camera. In AUS newspapers on weekend.
>
"In Gosford, the kayak's designer, Paul Hewitson, said video footage
and photographs from the kayak had helped them to understand what happened.
He would not disclose what he had learned, saying it would be revealed in a
documentary."
The rest of the article was worse, apparently the 'hero' made the trip
safely since they found the kayak 'in sight' of land.
Maybe they can peddle it as a mini-series or reality show!!
Amost Made It - The adventures of a hero who almost lived!
crap.
Chris
> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172491314.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/25/1172338469233.html?from=...
>
> > last photo from the guys camera. In AUS newspapers on weekend.
>
> "In Gosford, the kayak's designer, Paul Hewitson, said video footage
>
> and photographs from the kayak had helped them to understand what happened.
>
> He would not disclose what he had learned, saying it would be revealed in a
> documentary."
>
> The rest of the article was worse, apparently the 'hero' made the trip
>
> safely since they found the kayak 'in sight' of land.
>
> Maybe they can peddle it as a mini-series or reality show!!
>
> Amost Made It - The adventures of a hero who almost lived!
>
> crap.
You never give up, do you?
He didn't mean to die. Maybe he just did something stupid. Sure, his
fault. Doesn't make him a bad person.
Imagine how he felt in those final minutes knowing he couldn't go home
Do u feel OK about his wife & kid reading your contributions to this
thread someday?
Their memory & opinion of him is the one that counts. Ours doesn't.
Mike Sullivan
"Chris" <ch...@arnellfamily.plus.com> wrote in message
news:1172875555.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 17:39, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172491314.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/25/1172338469233.html?from=...
>>
>> > last photo from the guys camera. In AUS newspapers on weekend.
>>
>> "In Gosford, the kayak's designer, Paul Hewitson, said video footage
>>
>> and photographs from the kayak had helped them to understand what
>> happened.
>>
>> He would not disclose what he had learned, saying it would be revealed in
>> a
>> documentary."
>>
>> The rest of the article was worse, apparently the 'hero' made the trip
>>
>> safely since they found the kayak 'in sight' of land.
>>
>> Maybe they can peddle it as a mini-series or reality show!!
>>
>> Amost Made It - The adventures of a hero who almost lived!
>>
>> crap.
>
> You never give up, do you?
wow, I bet you got something new to offer! :^)
> He didn't mean to die. Maybe he just did something stupid. Sure, his
> fault. Doesn't make him a bad person.
> Imagine how he felt in those final minutes knowing he couldn't go home
In his final moments he was probably pretty comfortable,
He prolly passed out quietly in the water due to hypothermia.
I'm guessing the panic happened when the boat slipped
away from him and he realized he didn't have himself
tethered to it, and with all the struggle gear on, he wasn't
able to swim fast enough after the boat.
I'm guessing there was a moment where he was swimming
very hard with all his gear on, and he realized his boat
was not getting closer, and he started to feel the lactic
acid building up, and caught a couple inhales of sea water
while trying to swim. It was the gulp of seawater that
prolly made him see those flashing lightning
realization "I might die here". It really can be
visual, there's this explosion in your head. As he
became tired, he did a calculation. The boat might
be catchable if he took his gear off. If he took his
gear off, he could swim faster, but only would have
about 10 minutes in the water to do it where he'd be able
to possibly function to get to the boat. He really doesn't
know for sure, though, as he's never swum in 42 degree
water before with no wet or dry suit on.
Don't know what his decision was. My guess is if he
tried to swim it, he likely would have drowned in the
struggle to get the gear off of him. If he didn't try
to swim it, he'd have bobbed in the water for about
an hour or so before that cold cold comfortable sleep
came over him. I'm guessing that his last moments before
he lost consciousness he thought he was at home in bed
with his wife with his son coming in to wake him up to
take him to the park and play on the jungle gym, and
he probably felt at ease and happy.
> Do u feel OK about his wife & kid reading your contributions to this
> thread someday?
absolutely. I see above you say what he did might have been
stupid. I have no doubt that it was stupid, and it is precisely
because he has a kid that I even made a big deal. I'm all for
guys offing themselves, if that's what they want, as long as they
don't endanger others. The kid's going to hear for the rest
of his life what a hero his dad was.
As to the wife, she's full grown and as stupid as the guy is.
Want me to say that again? I can say it strongly as many times
as you like.
What I do hope is that someone somewhere is contemplating some
adventure that they're ill prepared for, and because a few
people are not f***ing impressed, maybe they decide to
do something else instead and go home and take their kid
to the park later.
> Their memory & opinion of him is the one that counts. Ours doesn't.
This is RSR. Of course our opinion counts, it counts here on RSR.
If they want to go dig around a usenet rowing group to find out what I think
about the guy, have at it. If it pisses them off, they know
where to find me.
Let's review, shall we?
I claim the guy's a ****** (insert one or more invectives) for
abandoning his young son to a very thoughtless adventure out of
some compulsion to be a famous hero.
Some RSR's tell me the guy did lots of safety preparation.
I point out the guy did not, and compared him to a drunk piling
his car into a tree.
A week later, that so called 'safety conscious' sea kayak
community is trying to figure out a way of pimping money
out of the guys death. Anybody is welcome to learn from
his mistakes for an admission fee. The wife, who may
likely be offended by my opinions, is hailing her 'heroic'
hubbies trip as a 'success' because the empty boat
was found within sight of NZ.
yep, quite a success!
In the novel Cannery Row by Steinbeck, two boys
are talking. One kid is trying to get the others' goat,
and start picking on the fact that the other kids' dad
had committed suicide by eating rat poison.
"what, he think he was a rat?"
There are kids growing up all over the world, some
of them have lost their dads. A very few of the dads are
called heroes, most of them for good reason. Mostly
it's because they sacrificed for the good of others, that
that's the only cause that justifies leaving behind a family.
If the kayaker's kid hears the truth once or twice in his lifetime,
it won't be too bad for him. I imagine he'll get over it.
btw, you guys who are so offended by my tone were welcome
at any time to change the header on this thread, you
know, the thread titled "dumbass paddler"?
BTW, thanks for bringing it up again. Every time
this topic comes up I feel stronger about it, and every
time I think more carefully I see more reasons why the
guy was an idiot, and the more I read about the sea
kayaking community that encouraged him the more
I think they ought to leave the gene pool as well.
Jonny
>
> btw, you guys who are so offended by my tone were welcome
> at any time to change the header on this thread, you
> know, the thread titled "dumbass paddler"?
>
What should we change it to? "Offensive Rower"?
Seriously Mike, you have missed the point about the criticisim of your
posts.
The guy probably screwed up. He probably was not as prepared as he
should have been. The whole endeavour was crazy at best.
We all agree with you (or most people do). His SAFETY and PLANNING are
fair game for criticism and comment
But did the guy not love his son? Does his family deserve your
PERSONAL comments about their PERSONAL lives? No.
That is where you are wrong and continue to be so.
If you feel stronger about it if the posts keep on coming, then that's
fine. I'll probably never meet you and if this thread is a judge of
your whole character then not meeing you would be fine with me.
anto...@aol.com
> "Chris" <c...@arnellfamily.plus.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Enough mate....c'mon. There are a lot of innocent people grieving. You
have lost some perspective
Mike Sullivan
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172928904.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 00:24, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "Chris" <c...@arnellfamily.plus.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172875555.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
snip
>
> Enough mate....c'mon. There are a lot of innocent people grieving. You
> have lost some perspective
This is a good choice of word, 'perspective', as it is my favorite.
There are a lot of people in denial, and a lot of people who are grieving
are not necessarily innocent. From my perspective, some are enablers.
It is my perspective as a dad that leads me to react harshly,
as I claimed said in the very first post. "else I wouldn't give it a
notice".
Mike Sullivan
> On Mar 3, 8:24 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> btw, you guys who are so offended by my tone were welcome
>> at any time to change the header on this thread, you
>> know, the thread titled "dumbass paddler"?
>>
>
> What should we change it to? "Offensive Rower"?
you didn't have the balls to do it, so I did.
>
> Seriously Mike, you have missed the point about the criticisim of your
> posts.
No I have not.
>
> The guy probably screwed up. He probably was not as prepared as he
> should have been. The whole endeavour was crazy at best.
>
> We all agree with you (or most people do). His SAFETY and PLANNING are
> fair game for criticism and comment
good, you are actually saying this much more strongly than
originally. Remember the first criticisms of me were that he actually
did prepare very carefully which I debunked.
>
> But did the guy not love his son? Does his family deserve your
> PERSONAL comments about their PERSONAL lives? No.
The actions of his wife (according to what I could tell on all the
news accounts - I admit this could be very inaccurate) were
not at all responsible. From my perspective , that
deserves comment on RSR. I did not email her and his friends
and insult them. If they're interested in MHO they will have
to go around and look for it.
>
> That is where you are wrong and continue to be so.
>
> If you feel stronger about it if the posts keep on coming, then that's
> fine. I'll probably never meet you and if this thread is a judge of
> your whole character then not meeing you would be fine with me.
what you see is what you get. I'm not one way here and another
way elsewhere.
And as far as meeting you goes, who are you? Jonny who?
There are some of us who are exactly who we are, we put our
own names there, where we row, where we work, where we live,
names of my kids, photos, personal anecdotes, and admissions
of personal or professional failure. You could look me up where
I shared a really bad safety situation that I felt responsible for, a girl
got hurt. I volunteered it to RSR as an example of how we can go
wrong. It would take you two minutes to look up my cell phone
number based on what I put out here.
Everybody on RSR knows who I am, and what I think.
So I lose a bunch, win a few.
The ones I win are real keepers, though.
Mike Sullivan
Jonny
> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > What should we change it to? "Offensive Rower"?
>
> you didn't have the balls to do it, so I did.
>
I actually didn't know how to do it on Google Groups. But thanks for
doing it for us all.
> > Seriously Mike, you have missed the point about the criticisim of your
> > posts.
>
> No I have not.
OK then, you really are an offensive rower. I was thinking that you
were not picking up on the two separate issues, but if you still feel
the same way on both - good luck to you.
> >
> good, you are actually saying this much more strongly than
> originally. Remember the first criticisms of me were that he actually
> did prepare very carefully which I debunked.
I was only ever taking you to task for your personal comments. Below
the belt, lacking in taste etc.
> I did not email her and his friends
> and insult them. If they're interested in MHO they will have
> to go around and look for it.
The fact that you didn't go to the funeral with a big "Dumbass
Paddler" banner to hold up doesn't make your personal comments any
more justified or acceptable. It is not about you being 'caught' doing
something, it is about you having done it. You have shown a lack of
thought, taste and have been rather undignified. The fact that they
are most likely never going to see it does not change what you have
done.
>
>
> what you see is what you get. I'm not one way here and another
> way elsewhere.
>
> And as far as meeting you goes, who are you? Jonny who?
Plenty of people know me and know what I do. I don't seek to prove
myself to you.
>
> There are some of us who are exactly who we are, we put our
> own names there, where we row, where we work, where we live,
> names of my kids, photos, personal anecdotes, and admissions
> of personal or professional failure.
If it gives you a kick, google me. I have no secrets.
> You could look me up where
> I shared a really bad safety situation that I felt responsible for, a girl
> got hurt. I volunteered it to RSR as an example of how we can go
> wrong. It would take you two minutes to look up my cell phone
> number based on what I put out here.
Great. Lovely. Still doesn't alter the comments that you have made
that I, and others, think are below the belt and undignified.
>
> Everybody on RSR knows who I am, and what I think.
Yeah, a clever guy who should have stayed with the safety discussion
and known better than to sink the boot into some dead guy.
>
> So I lose a bunch, win a few.
>
> The ones I win are real keepers, though.
>
Still losing this half though Mike.
Mike Sullivan
> On Mar 6, 7:00 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> > What should we change it to? "Offensive Rower"?
>>
>> you didn't have the balls to do it, so I did.
>>
> I actually didn't know how to do it on Google Groups. But thanks for
> doing it for us all.
welcome to usenet.
>
>
>> > Seriously Mike, you have missed the point about the criticisim of your
>> > posts.
>>
>> No I have not.
>
> OK then, you really are an offensive rower. I was thinking that you
> were not picking up on the two separate issues, but if you still feel
> the same way on both - good luck to you.
The consequences of selfish stupidity should not be heroism.
snip
> The fact that you didn't go to the funeral with a big "Dumbass
> Paddler" banner to hold up doesn't make your personal comments any
> more justified or acceptable. It is not about you being 'caught' doing
> something, it is about you having done it. You have shown a lack of
> thought, taste and have been rather undignified. The fact that they
> are most likely never going to see it does not change what you have
> done.
You are so wrong. I can't speak for you, but I bet I feel far
more deeply for this family than you do with your bullshit
sense of dignity and and 'taste'. I'm truly pissed off about it,
angry and unsettled. I'm not pretending like your waggish
preaching.
>>
>>
>> what you see is what you get. I'm not one way here and another
>> way elsewhere.
>>
>> And as far as meeting you goes, who are you? Jonny who?
>
> Plenty of people know me and know what I do. I don't seek to prove
> myself to you.
LOL. That's why you keep coming back to me
like a bad date.
>>
>> There are some of us who are exactly who we are, we put our
>> own names there, where we row, where we work, where we live,
>> names of my kids, photos, personal anecdotes, and admissions
>> of personal or professional failure.
>
> If it gives you a kick, google me. I have no secrets.
I don't GOS to google you up. BFD. If you had anything
to say, you'd have already said it here somewhere.
>
>> You could look me up where
>> I shared a really bad safety situation that I felt responsible for, a
>> girl
>> got hurt. I volunteered it to RSR as an example of how we can go
>> wrong. It would take you two minutes to look up my cell phone
>> number based on what I put out here.
>
> Great. Lovely. Still doesn't alter the comments that you have made
> that I, and others, think are below the belt and undignified.
I bet some people are tired of it, some people agree with
me, most people weren't reading anymore until I changed
the thread title.
And I'm not going to say something so stupid as 'I don't
care what you think', because I do. I do care what you,
and Tim and everybody has had to say about me, except
for Anton. I disagree w/ Anton that I don't have perspective,
I think I have a clearer and more complete perspective, which
is why I'm acting so.
So I offend you, that's the price of speaking my mind
about something I care about. At the risk of being a
shrill old bitch, I'll pay it.
>
>>
>> Everybody on RSR knows who I am, and what I think.
>
> Yeah, a clever guy who should have stayed with the safety discussion
> and known better than to sink the boot into some dead guy.
I'm the only one on the thread that broke down the safety part,
read it all, thought it through, and reconstructed what might have
gone wrong. The 'some dead guy' has a name, btw, his name
is Andrew Mcauley.
In the breakdown, I compared his actions to a drunk piling his
car into a bridge abutment. Nobody in the world is going to
write an article about that drunk and call him a hero. His family
will feel the same pain of loss, and will live with the fact that he
did something really f***ing stupid that they will suffer for.
Indeed, none of us has to say a word about it, I sure wouldn't.
That stupidity is a given, you go do something stupid, it's
sad for the survivors and the lesson is learned by the death of
the stupid drunk.
However, if I'd heard the wife had been pounding bourbon with
the guy and had sent him to the store to get some more, I'd sure
say she was an idiot. If she said that he was a better driver at .23 blood
alchohol than anybody else was sober, what would you say of her?
That is why I'm so adamant. Everybody is assuming the guy is
a hero, and it pumps another shot of stupid into our culture.
In the meantime you got pub buddies paying several grand
and jumping into an ocean rowing boat for yet another rowing
crossing(where they run out of food), and probably 10s of
thousands of people lining up to see what sort of other sort of
stupidity they can be famous for.
snip to end msg taken
Mike
Jonny
> welcome to usenet.
>
Welcome to a new century!
>
> The consequences of selfish stupidity should not be heroism.
>
Who said it was? I didn't.
>
> You are so wrong. I can't speak for you, but I bet I feel far
> more deeply for this family than you do with your bullshit
> sense of dignity and and 'taste'. I'm truly pissed off about it,
> angry and unsettled. I'm not pretending like your waggish
> preaching.
>
Good - be angry that something has happened. Fight the good fight to
solve the problem (safety V stupidity). You don't have to be offensive
in a personal way to do that. Whether my sense of dignity or taste is
offended is not the issue, you have gone beyond a wider society norm.
>
> If you had anything to say, you'd have already said it here somewhere.
>
Mostly I just go out and do things that are worthwhile. I don't have
to say it all here.
>
> So I offend you, that's the price of speaking my mind
> about something I care about. At the risk of being a
> shrill old bitch, I'll pay it.
>
Your comments (the personal stuff) do offend me, others and are
offensive in general. But speaking your mind on the safety/stupidity
angle is fine.
Why can't you separate the two?
You diminish and water down your message by adding the nasty personal
stuff. It is not necessary and well below what a person of your
knowledge and standing should be saying. You embarrass and de-value
yourself regardless of whatever my feelings may be. You might not care
about my sensibilies, but do you care that you are, in a sense,
harming yourself and your message (on safety).
martin+x@y.z
most fundamental part of the inital criticism may have been lost by
some taking offense.
The part that earns this guys the "dumbass" title happened well before
he got in the water. In fact, in my book, it has nothing to do with
the trip. He would have been a dumbass paddler even if he succeeded.
Why? His decision to do this is what was inconceivably dumb for a
family man.
Take this scenario. A family man. Wife, kids, parents, etc. An
athlete. Say the guy has run multiple marathons. He is very
experienced.
Then, one day, he decides that his personal dream is to run 1,500
miles "solo". No assistance. With whatever he can carry. Maybe the
plan is to hunt and gather along the way. He carries with him a
backpack with safety equipment and what he, from experience, knows
will help him make this dream happen.
He dies 50 miles from the finish line from a heart attack.
Hero or idiot?
I think you have to go back to the genesis and context of the whole
endevour. The failure here was in placing his family's best interest
first. The most serious transgression being the abdication of his
responsibilities for a want of adolescent nature.
His primary responsibility was to his kids and wife, that Dad/Husband
be alive to grow old with them; to be a role model and teacher to his
kids.
If you are going to have kids you have to accept the responsibility
that comes with it. Otherwise, do the world some good and don't have
any.
The decision was idiotic because the challenge did nothing more than:
a) Seriously risk his life
b) Risk the future and well being of his kids and family
c) Serve no purpose whatsoever other than to say he did it
d) Would not have been diminished whatsoever as an accomplishment by
having several safety crews follow with support cars (still talking
about the dead marathon runner)
e) Nobody in the world will give a shit about him being dead three
days after it happened
f) But his kids and family will suffer with the consequences for the
rest of their lives
No, the decision was dumb. And that would qualify this runner to be
called a dumbass runner.
I'd love to go up on one of those Russian rockets you can buy a $20M
ticket into. Even if I won the lottery and had the money I wouldn't
do it. Why? It's a dumb decision. Personal satisfaction. An
adolescent dream. My family could suffer with the consequences
forever if something went wrong. It would be a dumbass idea.
Now, how's this rower any different?
-Martin
Mike Sullivan
> On Mar 6, 9:58 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> welcome to usenet.
>>
> Welcome to a new century!
>>
>> The consequences of selfish stupidity should not be heroism.
>>
> Who said it was? I didn't.
So then, what should the consequences of selfish stupidity
be then in the same vein. Remember that heroism is an
attribute conferred by others, and not necessarily an
inherent thing. Many have been heroes who operated out
of strict fear, reactions.
So what attribute should get conferred upon selfish stupidity? What
voice should be heard to be heard when others are shouting
'hero'?
>>
>> You are so wrong. I can't speak for you, but I bet I feel far
>> more deeply for this family than you do with your bullshit
>> sense of dignity and and 'taste'. I'm truly pissed off about it,
>> angry and unsettled. I'm not pretending like your waggish
>> preaching.
>>
> Good - be angry that something has happened. Fight the good fight to
> solve the problem (safety V stupidity). You don't have to be offensive
> in a personal way to do that. Whether my sense of dignity or taste is
> offended is not the issue, you have gone beyond a wider society norm.
As far as I know, it's me discussing this with you. I'm not sure you
should try to speak for society, though you're welcome to
try.
>>
>> If you had anything to say, you'd have already said it here somewhere.
>>
> Mostly I just go out and do things that are worthwhile. I don't have
> to say it all here.
Good. Think of this perspective. We are what we
create. that's all there is. Our legacy is what we have done
in the world, who we have loved, it defines who we are.
there are people who remember,
perhaps people who tell stories, that's all there is, and whatever
small corner of the world that we've made better by being there
for a few short years.
>>
>> So I offend you, that's the price of speaking my mind
>> about something I care about. At the risk of being a
>> shrill old bitch, I'll pay it.
>>
> Your comments (the personal stuff) do offend me, others and are
> offensive in general. But speaking your mind on the safety/stupidity
> angle is fine.
>
> Why can't you separate the two?
Because of my perspective above. Addressing specifics of safety and
how they apply to situations is a mechanical thing, it's a science, a
formula,
and a technique and practice. But it has no urgency or passion
attached to it without consequences.
The other side is the consequences. If death were enough of a consequence,
then I'd not get my panties all bunched up about it. Thus my allusion
to the drunken driver, death is enough consequence because there
is no good legacy in the act. Andrew pretends at a legacy, he's
a poser at heroism, and got himself killed wastefully, having learned
nothing
himself, and teaching the wrong lesson to others.
It's not just a question of had he prepared professionally for the
crossing it was that:
1. The crossing depends first and foremost on luck. If we sent a
hundred
average paddlers out, some lucky few would make it. Some of the very best
might never.
2. he was bound and determined not to prepare professionally, but to
simply attack it with a superman suit - I can do it because I'm Andrew
Mcauley.
3. He had nothing but adoring sycophants about him, nobody with
a critical eye.
4. He had other responsibilities in life that should have given him a
perspective to avoid 1-3 above but it seemed not to matter. This was
his son. This is my perspective, and what generates the bile.
>
> You diminish and water down your message by adding the nasty personal
> stuff. It is not necessary and well below what a person of your
> knowledge and standing should be saying. You embarrass and de-value
> yourself regardless of whatever my feelings may be. You might not care
> about my sensibilies, but do you care that you are, in a sense,
> harming yourself and your message (on safety).
So because I'm an asshole about this somebody is going to decide that
it's a little safer than is? nah, I reject that.
Listen, if in all the blogs I've read about this incident, I'd read one sea
kayaker
who criticized this crossing attempt I'd prolly deeply moderate my tone, but
I suspect the
whole lot of them are loopy posers.
It's as if Andrew dying on the trip makes the rest of them look that much
'tuffer'.
I contrast it with a local surf break here called Mavericks. It's a world
class
big wave that only a few hardassed surfers take on. A few years ago
a world class hawaiian surfer (Mark Foo) died at the break. The list of
criticisms that
came from the surfers was very long. They wept for him, mourned for him,
held their hands in a big circle out in the ocean, but also deeply
criticized the
choices he made and why.
They know the place is dangerous, but as dangerous as the place was,
nobody had yet gotten killed. They didn't need someone to die to prove
how brave and adventurous they are. Go out and google "Mark Foo" and
read what the surfers said.
In fact, here's a challenge for you. Go find some sea kayaking site that
breaks down
in even polite terms what an idiot he was, and I'll apologize
to your polite society. I followed all the links I could find last week,
I couldn't see anything.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"martin+x@y.z" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173164287.8...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure about coming back into this thread, but I feel that the
> most fundamental part of the inital criticism may have been lost by
> some taking offense.
>
> The part that earns this guys the "dumbass" title happened well before
> he got in the water. In fact, in my book, it has nothing to do with
> the trip. He would have been a dumbass paddler even if he succeeded.
> Why? His decision to do this is what was inconceivably dumb for a
> family man.
This is the perspective I spoke of.
But there's a broader issue, of this sort of adventuring that
pushes the 'so-called' limits, that I have less passion about
when the adventurers are the only ones suffering the
consequences.
Carl spoke more carefully about it. But basically it's the same
damned thing, with different consequences.
I liken it to committing suicide. I have two friends that have
killed themselves. One a single man hiked up into the sierras,
left a note to the rangers as to where his car could go and let
them know that they would never ever find his body, don't bother
looking.
The other was a surfer friend, had kids in high school.
My opinions about the latter friend were not kind, not
polite. The former was no big surprise, and I was
ambivalent. He had health problems that would no longer
allow him to hike in sierras for weeks at a time. He said
if he couldn't do that anymore, life wasn't worth living.
Same act, different consequences.
Mike Sullivan
"Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:esj4k4$84$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>
> "martin+x@y.z" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173164287.8...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
snip
> polite. The former was no big surprise, and I was
> ambivalent. He had health problems that would no longer
> allow him to hike in sierras for weeks at a time. He said
> if he couldn't do that anymore, life wasn't worth living.
BTW, JD if you're reading this thread, this friend
was Joe Breen. I'm not sure I told you about it.
Mike
Jonny
> So because I'm an asshole about this somebody is going to decide that
> it's a little safer than is? nah, I reject that.
>
No, it isn't any safer, but that is not the point. Next time you get
up to discuss or promote something to do with safety what would be the
result if the people listening were thinking "he's just some rude
jerk" etc and they won't necessarily get to your message?
Do the people at your club listen to your advice? I hope so, but if
you carry on like an asshole too often they might stop listening to
you.
Having principles is a good thing.
Alienating people that you have to work with is not.
>
> In fact, here's a challenge for you. Go find some sea kayaking site that
> breaks down in even polite terms what an idiot he was, and I'll apologize
> to your polite society.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks (just like a lot of the above) who
are calling this guy an idiot - no prizes there. But how many made
nasty personal comments? The surfer you mention - they criticized his
choices and actions, but they mourned for him and were respectful.
Why won't you be respectful?
You think he was a bad father for all the reasons you have outlined,
fine. I'm not a father but I agree with the though. Should you have
expressed it the way you did (and continue to do so)? No.
I hold my line that you still don't get why you are being criticised
by me (and by other earlier) and you still can't separate the
practical and the personal issues.
TidewayUmpire
The original poster has revealed more about himself by the tone and
content of his posts that he realises or perhaps would want.
Best not encourage him further by responding to him?
Jonny
>
> The original poster has revealed more about himself by the tone and
> content of his posts that he realises or perhaps would want.
> Best not encourage him further by responding to him?
So, are you suggesting that if someone whats to dig a hole I should
not hand him a shovel?
You are right - we are never going to agree so why am I trying to lead
a horse to water if I cannot make it drink.
KC
I'm curious what you mean by this. Mike has revealed nothing in this
thread that any regular here on RSR didn't already know about him. I
know him personally, and hold him in very high regard. Is he an
opinionated outspoken SOB? Yep. But he is also one of the most caring,
intelligent, kind-hearted individuals I know. He calls a horse a horse,
that's all. Some people are offended by Frank and Ernest. They are
Mike's best friends. ;^)
Basically this comes down to the fact that some people think you should
never speak unkindly of the dead. That's BS. Maybe Andrew was in every
other way an excellent family man, and a wonderful individual. But this
was his single fatal flaw, and for that, and in that regard, he can
legitimately be labeled an idiot.
You know, you could say of Joe-blow, who died recently, "What a great
man. Loved his family, his wife, kids, worked all his life for them,
volunteered for his community & church, would bend over backwards for a
friend in need... but boy, when it came to investing his money wisely,
he was a f&*king idiot. Now he's dead and left no money for his beloved
family." Is that offensive? Maybe it's the truth! It's offensive to
say nice things when they aren't appropriate & true.
The offended apparently value respect for the dead and their survivors
more than Mike does. Mike apparently values respect for, and duty to,
one's family more than the offended.
Oh well.
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
Actually you did agree with me. You agreed the guy was not approaching
this endeavor
in a safe systematic manner, and you agree that he's prolly not a good
father
due to the choices he made.
Indeed, it was that latter judgement that seemed most to
offend your sensibilities.
The rest is language and tone.
anto...@aol.com
wrote:
> <anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
Great..u made ur point .. now shut the f+ck up
Mike Sullivan
> On Mar 6, 3:09 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> So because I'm an asshole about this somebody is going to decide that
>> it's a little safer than is? nah, I reject that.
>>
> No, it isn't any safer, but that is not the point. Next time you get
> up to discuss or promote something to do with safety what would be the
> result if the people listening were thinking "he's just some rude
> jerk" etc and they won't necessarily get to your message?
> Do the people at your club listen to your advice? I hope so, but if
> you carry on like an asshole too often they might stop listening to
> you.
I bet that's why this issue got ignored on RSR, it was because
I carried on like an a-hole.
>
> Having principles is a good thing.
> Alienating people that you have to work with is not.
google "boathouse bitch", Jonny.
There is a principle here, but not what you think. I actually don't like
confronting
people. So when ppl choose to row on the wrong side of
the course, row in the dark without lights, carelessly handle boats,
then they have been the ones offending the principle, and I
waste no time calling them on it. I don't like wading into a testosterone
soaked bunch of master's men and getting into the bowman's face and telling
him to learn to steer his straight four after twice being on the
wrong side of the course at full speed.
I do it though, I do it because it had to be done. Lots of people are
glad I did.
>
>>
>> In fact, here's a challenge for you. Go find some sea kayaking site
>> that
>> breaks down in even polite terms what an idiot he was, and I'll apologize
>> to your polite society.
>
> I'm sure there are plenty of folks (just like a lot of the above) who
> are calling this guy an idiot - no prizes there. But how many made
> nasty personal comments? The surfer you mention - they criticized his
> choices and actions, but they mourned for him and were respectful.
> Why won't you be respectful?
You didn't read what I wrote. Re-read my opinion about
the sea kayaking community I just posted. I may be wrong, and if
I am I'll apologize. Somebody show me I'm wrong.
I'm not.
Your question is really good. Why won't I be respectful?
Because I have no respect for them. This could change with more evidence.
>
> You think he was a bad father for all the reasons you have outlined,
> fine. I'm not a father but I agree with the though. Should you have
> expressed it the way you did (and continue to do so)? No.
>
> I hold my line that you still don't get why you are being criticised
> by me (and by other earlier) and you still can't separate the
> practical and the personal issues.
I think I've explained that pretty well. The personal is the consequence
of the practical.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173201988....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 10:38 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> <anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
snip
>
> Great..u made ur point .. now shut the f+ck up
>
I love 'tuff talk' on usenet!!
paul_v...@hotmail.com
> <anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
Calm down Adam Ant, perhaps a moment in Karma Korner for you. [;o)
Quick consistency check: How do you feel about Pat Tillman delaying a
promising NFL career to become a soldier and subsequently get killed,
leaving behind a wife that surely would have had a much different
future if the NFL option had been chosen. Just put your answer in the
context of this thread, inserting anything regarding political
opinions about the ongoing war has no place here. So no schoolboy
errors, or party fouls allowed.
Would you title the thread: "Dumbass Football Player" or "Dumbass
Soldier"?
What about any high risk job/hobby? Is it possible to take all
reasonable precautions and still die during the endeavor? Does that
make the dead a "dumbass"?
I may want you to write my epitaph and would like to avoid getting
"Dumbass ...." used in the process, if that is possible. LOL
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173203206.8...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 2:38 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> <anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172928904.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 3 Mar, 00:24, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >> "Chris" <c...@arnellfamily.plus.com> wrote in message
snip
> Quick consistency check: How do you feel about Pat Tillman delaying a
> promising NFL career to become a soldier and subsequently get killed,
> leaving behind a wife that surely would have had a much different
> future if the NFL option had been chosen. Just put your answer in the
> context of this thread, inserting anything regarding political
> opinions about the ongoing war has no place here. So no schoolboy
> errors, or party fouls allowed.
>
> Would you title the thread: "Dumbass Football Player" or "Dumbass
> Soldier"?
>
> What about any high risk job/hobby? Is it possible to take all
> reasonable precautions and still die during the endeavor? Does that
> make the dead a "dumbass"?
Did you actually read any part of this thread, or do you
just feel left out?
I addressed this very early on when I mentioned high risk
jobs like firefighting, cops, etc. Let me know if it
needs re-stating or if I wasn't clear.
As for Pat, you don't want to go there.
>
> I may want you to write my epitaph and would like to avoid getting
> "Dumbass ...." used in the process, if that is possible. LOL
too late! :^)
too late for me too.
:^(
In either case, Paul, I strongly suspect that you,
like me, want your epitaph to be honest.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:esk4aj$7ru$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
> TidewayUmpire wrote:
snip
> Oh well.
KC,. this tar baby has some wheels. careful.
m
> > he got in the water. In fact, in my book, it has nothing to do with
> > the trip. He would have been a dumbass paddler even if he succeeded.
> > Why? His decision to do this is what was inconceivably dumb for a
> > family man.
>
> This is the perspective I spoke of.
Mike, I'm not sure that this perspective can be fully understood
unless one has kids and had made the mental transformation required to
understand what we are here for once you have them.
I had a thought about this last night. Yesterday was my birthday.
After we got back from having a nice dinner my oldest son told me he
had a surprise for me. Actually, three.
The first one was a card he made by folding a piece of paper and
drawing on it. It had the superman "S" in the front and, inside, it
said something about me being his superman. That's what we are to our
kids. Role models and teachers.
The second was a styrofoam cup that he cut-up carved and painted to be
my crown. He made one for mommy too. I wore a styrofoam crown for
the rest of the night.
The third was a book. We talk a lot during the drive to school in the
morning. He listened. One day I told him that I had some meetings
where I had to be more of a salesman than an engineer and that I
really wasn't all that good at that. I told him that, as a business
owner, I had not choice but to work hard and learn to be various
things. And that we like the challenge of doing difficult things.
Anyhow, he got me a book about sales and marketing.
The point of relating this is, perhaps, to help those who don't have
kids realize that these beings are not just eating-and-pooping
machines that you have to attend to. They are incredibly wonderful
little people that depend on you, care for you, want you to care for
them and see you as the foundation of their very existance. I know I
didn't relate to kids as well as I do now when I was single. Maybe
the perspective can't be had until you have them.
Now imagine this. Imagine that I went to my son today and told him
that I was going to go away and climb Everest because it was my dream
to do so. And, imagine that I tried. And that I killed myself doing
it. How frigging ridiculous and stupid would that decision have
been? What the hell would the purpose of climing Everest be? How can
that be more important than deciding NOT to do it because my little
ones need me around?
The problem isn't with the trip. It's with the frame of reference one
might use to justify taking it. Or maybe, rather, the lack of a frame
of reference.
-Martin
Mike Sullivan
"m" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173204705.7...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > The part that earns this guys the "dumbass" title happened well before
>> > he got in the water. In fact, in my book, it has nothing to do with
>> > the trip. He would have been a dumbass paddler even if he succeeded.
>> > Why? His decision to do this is what was inconceivably dumb for a
>> > family man.
>>
>> This is the perspective I spoke of.
>
> Mike, I'm not sure that this perspective can be fully understood
> unless one has kids and had made the mental transformation required to
> understand what we are here for once you have them.
Martin, you're absolutely right, of course, and it was a very
good read. It gets even more interesting when the kids get a
lot older and you realize that they think you are a complete and
utter idiot.
Talk about perspective!!! :^)
but I wouldn't trade away those disgusted eye rolling any more
than I'd trade the little kid hugs.
The rewards become few, but full. I got a call from my
daughter last year from Mexico when she did a spring break
surf trip. She told me "dad, these idiots do NOT know how
to do a surf trip, I got spoiled from my trips with you"
My son asked me this weekend how work was going. The
surprise made me knock my ice tea into the tool box.
:^)
Mike
Carl
I think you'll find that Mike is, each time, responding to other
writers, has explained his reasoning very cogently & that he will, in
good old Usenet fashion (a fashion which has everything to do with
speaking straight & nothing to do with avoiding causing offence),
continue to answer criticisms aimed at him in similarly forthright manner.
I think I also know Mike well enough to know his entirely modest but
dedicated attitude towards safety. He's definitely a no-bullshit guy.
Like you, Anton, like me too, Mike knows & won't try to hide his own
screwups. But when something pisses him off, he will say so. It's a
viewpoint worth hearing, even when we disagree.
I have some experience of folk on RSR trying to tell me what not to say,
& RSR has some experience of me telling them to not even start trying to
censor me. Oddly enough that issue too was safety, & oddly enough the
concern was that by telling the truth I might offend (& incidentally
might get sued). I always think that unnecessary death is the biggest
offence, & attempting to hide or evade culpability is just as vile.
Mike strongly feels that it is nuts for those with a key parental
responsibility to engage in an activity of zero net worth & carrying an
unnecessary but imposed risk factor akin to that of Russian roulette.
Their death screws up their kids at a vulnerable age & their venture
achieves nothing of net worth. That's his view & I respect it.
Mike also feels it wrong for others to try to justify a daft & pointless
death. I tend to agree there too. Look how many irresponsible
dickheads end up getting mawkishly deified on UK roadsides by the
erection of tatty shrines & bundles of dead flowers? Never used to
happen, but now these useless little turds become posthumous heroes.
When I see that, I remember that only by luck did their lunatic driving
not also total a really decent family of four whose only mistake was to
be coming the other way at that moment - in which case the lunatic would
also have been a murderer. I say this with some feeling having been
"undertaken" 2 days ago, while in a file of traffic, by a car-full of
entirely un-belted youths, doing way over the speed limit, in a manner
that forced me to brake hard & swerve on a wet road to prevent what
otherwise would have been an horrendous pile-up. They thought it so
funny as they pogoed about in front of me. Me? I was nearly sick.
So it seems inappropriate to make a public show over a fatuous death.
It sets an unfortunate example but is increasingly how shallow PR
thinking drives comfortable societies. Where once we'd have privately
mourned the passing of a friend who died on a lark, now we tell the
world how worthwhile their prank really had to be. Real heroes are made
in a different mould: they are those who act with incredible courage in
response to circumstances not of their own choosing but thrust upon
them, _&_ they do so for the benefit of others. Heroism & altruism are
interlinked & do not advertise themselves, then or later.
If you make an event public, you do in effect invite everyone to take &
express a view. That's quite the opposite of the pernicious practices
of those who intrude unbidden upon private grief.
But I'm still very sorry for the family. So I do hope we can all agree
to respect the strongly held if opposing views & get on with other
stuff. How's about that?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
paul_v...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173203206.8...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 5, 2:38 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> <anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1172928904.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 3 Mar, 00:24, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> >> "Chris" <c...@arnellfamily.plus.com> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
> > Quick consistency check: How do you feel about Pat Tillman delaying a
> > promising NFL career to become a soldier and subsequently get killed,
> > leaving behind a wife that surely would have had a much different
> > future if the NFL option had been chosen. Just put your answer in the
> > context of this thread, inserting anything regarding political
> > opinions about the ongoing war has no place here. So no schoolboy
> > errors, or party fouls allowed.
>
> > Would you title the thread: "Dumbass Football Player" or "Dumbass
> > Soldier"?
>
> > What about any high risk job/hobby? Is it possible to take all
> > reasonable precautions and still die during the endeavor? Does that
> > make the dead a "dumbass"?
>
> Did you actually read any part of this thread, or do you
> just feel left out?
I didn't read all of it, too hostile for my taste. Not likely to go
back and find out either, I only required a "yes" or "no" for the two
questions anyway. I was trying to keep it simple.
> I addressed this very early on when I mentioned high risk
> jobs like firefighting, cops, etc. Let me know if it
> needs re-stating or if I wasn't clear.
>
> As for Pat, you don't want to go there.
Well then, it looks like the question was reasonable then. If I
didn't want to go there, I would not have asked.
I take it you maintain your consistency?
> > I may want you to write my epitaph and would like to avoid getting
> > "Dumbass ...." used in the process, if that is possible. LOL
>
> too late! :^)
>
> too late for me too.
> :^(
>
> In either case, Paul, I strongly suspect that you,
> like me, want your epitaph to be honest.
>
> Mike
Well of course, but the skillful writer may still be able to make it
sound a bit better. [;o)
Hell, the truth is good enough, though having to deal with folks that
question the truth can be a complete pain in the ass. It should make
one wonder about the credibility of the questioners.
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173212907.4...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
riiiiiggght. LOL. You have a long
history of keeping things simple on RSR.
>
>> I addressed this very early on when I mentioned high risk
>> jobs like firefighting, cops, etc. Let me know if it
>> needs re-stating or if I wasn't clear.
>>
>> As for Pat, you don't want to go there.
>
> Well then, it looks like the question was reasonable then. If I
> didn't want to go there, I would not have asked.
> I take it you maintain your consistency?
yes.
snip
>> In either case, Paul, I strongly suspect that you,
>> like me, want your epitaph to be honest.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Well of course, but the skillful writer may still be able to make it
> sound a bit better. [;o)
here lies the Sul
never loved, never dull
Mike Sullivan
"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eskfri$b73$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> anto...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 10:38 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><anton2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:1172928904.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
snip some sweet writing.
> If you make an event public, you do in effect invite everyone to take &
> express a view. That's quite the opposite of the pernicious practices of
> those who intrude unbidden upon private grief.
missionaries.
>
> But I'm still very sorry for the family. So I do hope we can all agree to
> respect the strongly held if opposing views & get on with other stuff.
> How's about that?
This is one of the great mysteries of usenet for as long
as I've known it c ~ 1988. A topic or a poster
that ppl despise somehow preventing the posting of
other 'more useful' content. You'd think they'd ignore
it and just go ahead and post something glorious
and useful.
I think the phenomenon is real, as ppl have complained about
it in every forum for many years, or go through this
whole 'Plonk' ritual.
I think there's a 'rubbernecking the traffic accident'
mentality, everybody has to slow down to look on the
other side of the highway to check out all the flames and
gore.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
He stayed the course,
And passed with class.
Thank God he didn't,
Die a dumbass!
Now to find that skillful writer. [;o)
KC
> Hell, the truth is good enough, though having to deal with folks that
> question the truth can be a complete pain in the ass. It should make
> one wonder about the credibility of the questioners.
>
> - Paul Smith
>
I'm going to need an umbrella for all this dripping irony.
;^)
-KC
paul_v...@hotmail.com
And the quizzlings continue to quizzle, or shoud that be drizzle?
Made it to a dock for a try at my experiment yet? (I know, wrong
thread, but you started it.)
Meet you back there when you have something more to offer.
- Paul Smith
KC
Paul, two words: FROZEN WATER.
:-/
paul_v...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
A rowing tank should work, as long as the obstructions are not
insurmountable.
Should come back to the NW, 70F and completely calm yesterday,
unfortunately I had to settle for an Erg session due to an
appointment, but we did get out this past w/e. Taking the opportunity
to muck about with oar length and inboard with the new wide rig and
finding some interesting things, some that seem to matter and others
that really don't.
Here's to an early thaw, Global warming and all. [;o)
- Paul Smith
KC
> On Mar 7, 7:09 am, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 2:02 pm, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Hell, the truth is good enough, though having to deal with folks that
>>>>> question the truth can be a complete pain in the ass. It should make
>>>>> one wonder about the credibility of the questioners.
>>>>> - Paul Smith
>>>> I'm going to need an umbrella for all this dripping irony.
>>>> ;^)
>>>> -KC
>>> And the quizzlings continue to quizzle, or shoud that be drizzle?
>>> Made it to a dock for a try at my experiment yet? (I know, wrong
>>> thread, but you started it.)
>>> Meet you back there when you have something more to offer.
>>> - Paul Smith
>> Paul, two words: FROZEN WATER.
>>
>> :-/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> A rowing tank should work, as long as the obstructions are not
> insurmountable.
Um, yeah. You need to visit a rowing tank one of these days. Nothing
about it is like a dock. Primarily, the riggers are in the way and are
not movable.
> Should come back to the NW,
That seems to imply I ever lived there, which I didn't.
I'll give your "experiment" a try when I get a chance. I doubt it will
help though, because if I don't experience what you describe, you could
just claim I did it wrong. That situation (that I did it wrong)
wouldn't surprise me though, as I still can't envision how you did it
based on your description. Maybe you could have someone video you doing
it, and post the video?
-KC
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Sorry, thought you worked for Boeing and in the area, just can't keep
all the various data streams seperated I guess.
> I'll give your "experiment" a try when I get a chance. I doubt it will
> help though, because if I don't experience what you describe, you could
> just claim I did it wrong. That situation (that I did it wrong)
> wouldn't surprise me though, as I still can't envision how you did it
> based on your description. Maybe you could have someone video you doing
> it, and post the video?
>
> -KC
Be the boat Danny, be the boat... [;o)
- Paul Smith
KC
Boeing is a big company. I was in defense and space systems, not
commercial aircraft, read: so.cal.
>> I'll give your "experiment" a try when I get a chance. I doubt it will
>> help though, because if I don't experience what you describe, you could
>> just claim I did it wrong. That situation (that I did it wrong)
>> wouldn't surprise me though, as I still can't envision how you did it
>> based on your description. Maybe you could have someone video you doing
>> it, and post the video?
>>
>> -KC
>
> Be the boat Danny, be the boat... [;o)
I understand the concept of your experiment. I just don't see how you
can reach the button with your left hand, and the handle with your right
hand, in the way you described (unless your left arm is way longer than
it should be). A picture or video would really help.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 7:09 am, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
snp
>> A rowing tank should work, as long as the obstructions are not
>> insurmountable.
>
> Um, yeah. You need to visit a rowing tank one of these days. Nothing
> about it is like a dock. Primarily, the riggers are in the way and are
> not movable.
I'm unaware of any tanks in Washington, though there is
one at OSU in Corvallis. I think it would be a very
useful tool for them, but I was surprised to hear how
little it was used. That is one nasty river!!!
Rumor has it there's one around some beach school down in
SoCal, but that maybe never got installed.... :^)
KC
Yeah, DYH wanted to have one built... I'm glad he didn't. That is a
luxury item that UCI does NOT need. How about a new boathouse and new
boats first? How about a decent salary for their (mens) coach?
I know you think they are a good tool, but I hate them. I at least hate
the one we have here. TOTALLY useless for anything except the most
basic novice-level instruction, which can be done on a dock machine.
Speaking of which, what is your thought on why UCI should have tanks
when they have dock machines? I say just build more&better dock
machines and a better dock!
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:esmoop$866$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>>> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 7, 7:09 am, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> I know you think they are a good tool, but I hate them. I at least hate
> the one we have here. TOTALLY useless for anything except the most basic
> novice-level instruction, which can be done on a dock machine.
I've seen the positive effect EC coaches have gleaned from tanks, for sure.
>
> Speaking of which, what is your thought on why UCI should have tanks when
> they have dock machines? I say just build more&better dock machines and a
> better dock!
I argued pretty firmly with DYH about it, it is never going to happen.
Our alma mater has huge other issues going on, we should catch up offline.
My friend Bill's been very busy, was on campus last friday. I'd like
to know who paid for the new baseball stadium and field house. I bet
it wasn't some donation!
BTW, are you aware of the Gottschalk wing of the Medical Center on campus?
It went in after my exit years ago, but it's named for one of the med school
founders who gave a $1.5 mil gift. His son rowed for UCI before me!