Wow, take a Prozac Rick. Were these people foolhardy? I guess you would have to define foolhardy. Was Columbus? How about Lindberg? What about the space shuttle crews? I think that mankind has gotten to where he is today by taking risks. Had the Canadian government not rescued those folks and they died up there, no one would have learned anything. The fact that they did survive and TELL about it might make some others think twice. I know that I have given the Passage some thought, but after hearing the stories from this round of attempts, I think I'll forgo for now. If the Canadian government wants to charge "adventurers" for time and effort to rescue them, fine. I have to agree that giving governments, any governments, ideas on how to tax the rest of us is not a good idea. Jim K

--- Jim Kennedy <apache235@msn.com> wrote: > Wow, take a Prozac Rick. Were these people > foolhardy? I guess you would have to define > foolhardy. Was Columbus? How about Lindberg? What > about the space shuttle crews? I think that mankind > has gotten to where he is today by taking risks. > Had the Canadian government not rescued those folks > and they died up there, no one would have learned > anything. The fact that they did survive and TELL > about it might make some others think twice. I know > that I have given the Passage some thought, but > after hearing the stories from this round of > attempts, I think I'll forgo for now. If the > Canadian government wants to charge "adventurers" > for time and effort to rescue them, fine. I have to > agree that giving governments, any governments, > ideas on how to tax the rest of us is not a good > idea. > > Jim K > Jim: You and a couple of other people on this list have no idea of who I am or what qualifies me to call someone foolhardy. Calling Columbus, Charles Augustus Lindberg or the shuttle astronauts foolhardy is lunacy and implying that I would is really dumb - on your part. I would really enjoy sitting across from you in a debate forum or even in a courtroom. You would be your own worst enemy. The three groups of people you try to imply that I would call foolhardy is what I will deal with. ALL of them knew of the risks involved. There is a risk/reward in all of their endeavors. They were all willing to take the risk and as we all know, some paid the ultimate price of the risk they took. However, let’s deal with the real question that I was talking about. The risk/reward is not for the advancement of mankind. Even an eight year old who understands some risks is not willing to jump off the roof to test out whether a pillowcase will hold as a parachute, although I know of one who did and he paid, as his parents paid the hospital bill, as he hobbled around for several months while we laughed at him for his escapade. Even one of the last postings about the Northwest Passage talked about the possibility of following an icebreaker as it went through the pack ice. This was a metal boat that even we know that action can become dangerous because of the displacement of the larger ice pieces can come out directly behind the stern and actually flip a small enough boat. No, I do not want to take that risk nor do I want to even encourage anyone to do that. Yes, it’s summertime and the ice pack is nowhere near where it will be another 30 or 60 days. As I referred to in my reference about a climbing permit on Everest, there is a very real risk and the government assumes that risk when an “accident” occurs. However this brings out the real difference between and accident and pre-meditated carelessness. Is a trip through the Northwest Passage foolhardy? Not if you are really willing to assume the risks. However, if you plow on ahead and your passage is blocked because weather closes the ice and you end up being trapped and the danger of losing your life and crew is now to the fore, why should the government just automatically come and rescue you with their associated risk and peril? Is that their job? Yes, in a way it is, however why should the government automatically let any darn fool go and endanger himself because he wants to? That is a whole semester’s class and debate in law school and we will not answer that question in this forum. No, I do not need Prozac and probably never will. I had all the danger and risk I needed during my 7 years, 2 months and 29 days in the military and my almost 1100 days in SEA. Waking up in the Philippines convinced me that my days of danger and adventure were over. Now I am a spectator and will stay that way. Sitting on a trawler or flying a plane, twin engine, is about as dangerous as I need to get or want to be. Danger and excitement are for younger people. Not me. I intend to meet my maker with all my parts. Rick Redfern 62 and still have all the pieces.