..Apparently:.........................

Yours is not to reason. Why?

Welcome back Fitch. VBG

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:38:44 GMT, Don Bruder wrote:

In article ,
Fitch R. Williams wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Perhaps all of these are true. Perhaps none of them are. That isn't
important. What is important is that he got it done, and, regardless of
how or why, he got it done without getting hemself damaged or dead in
the process.

In my opinion, what is important is that people realize the fact that
he got away with it doesn't in and of itself make it a good idea, or
safe. Without getting into the specifics of the valve removal this
can be discussed as a matter of philosophy. i.e. doing something
risky and getting away with it for a while doesn't make it either safe
or a good idea. Its good to be lucky, but it isn't a good idea to
depend on it over the long term.

Now there's a revelation... (please imagine my eyes rolling)

The guy never claimed his method to be "safe". In fact, it seem to me
that he was worried that it might not be safe, so he was taking
umtpy-four different precautions. In the end, he claimed it got the job
done.

Look, NOTHING is "safe". Getting out of bed in the mornign has been
proven to be fatal in certain situations. Risk assessment (and
acceptance) is something we all do every day. I KNOW I can get in my car
to head for work only to wake up in the hospital (or not wake up at
all...) because SOMETHING (I won't even make a feeble attempt to
enumerate all the "somethings that are possible) went wrong. Maybe I was
driving too fast. Or too slow. Maybe there's a drunk heading for me
around the next bend. Maybe the wheels fly off the car and I go into the
drink - whatever! I accept that there's an element of risk to *EVERY
STINKING THING I DO*, and it's not for you or anyone else to tell me I
may or may not do something because *YOU* think the risk is too high.
Ony I can make that decision as to how much risk is too much, so I'd
thank you and your cronies who are intent on protectng me from myself to
keep your nose in your own business.

The deal is that a contemplated course of action should be shown to be
safe, or have acceptable risk vs payback, or one doesn't proceed. One
does not have to show something to be unsafe to avoid proceeding. The
difference is profound.

Likewise, as I just said, *I* decide what risk is acceptable for *ME*,
regardless of what you or anybody else thinks. Yours is to assess *YOUR*
risk and act on that assessment. Yours *IS NOT* to to assess my risk and
tell me "you can't".

Its called risk management. Its a personal choice.

And then here, you come into 100% full agreement with me. Yet you still
try to preach that your decision regarding a risky activity is the only
one that's right. Come on, guy, which is it? Is it my decision, but only
if *YOU* think the risk is low enough? And where's the boundary between
"You go ahead and make your choice" and "Oh, no you don't! That's too
dangerous!"?

You pick your pony, you take your ride.

Interesting analogy, since I'm primarily a horseman. And I agree...
*YOU* pick *YOUR* pony and *YOU* take *YOUR* ride.
*I* pick *MY* pony, and *I* take *MY* ride.

So long as you don't try telling me "That one's too dangerous for you"
(or vice-versa) we'll both get along just fine.

The instant you start trying to "pick my pony" for me, we're going to be
at odds.