http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...doomed-voyage/
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-...pay-for-rescue

Just a kid chasing a dream ...

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...doomed-voyage/
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-...pay-for-rescue

Just a kid chasing a dream ...

-- Andy Barss


Sure, I like this part:
The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
$300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian Ocean.
In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot the bill.
"We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...doomed-voyage/
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-...pay-for-rescue

Just a kid chasing a dream ...

-- Andy Barss


Sure, I like this part:
The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
$300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian
Ocean. In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot the
bill.
"We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.



Likely to stay that way now.

On 6/15/2010 10:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...doomed-voyage/

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/abby-...pay-for-rescue


Just a kid chasing a dream ...

-- Andy Barss


Sure, I like this part:
The family of Abby Sunderland will not be reimbursing Australia for the
$300,000 cost of finding her in the middle of the treacherous Indian
Ocean. In fact, Abby's mother suggested American taxpayers should foot
the bill.
"We're not wealthy people," MaryAnne Sunderland said.

The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have stated
that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the Australians?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have stated
that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the Australians?

Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
this thread.

Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
Australians?

Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
this thread.

Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side of
it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or attempted
record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles in the
eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort. Sort of
a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has been rolling around in my
head as these conversations have unfolded. Of course - I have no idea if
that is true or not...

--

-Mike-

On Jun 16, 11:39*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
Australians?

Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
this thread.

Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side of
it. *It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or attempted
record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles in the
eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort. *Sort of
a team member thing. *This whole kinship thing has been rolling around in my
head as these conversations have unfolded. *Of course - I have no idea if
that is true or not...


That concept works for me. Except that kinship may not be so much for
record breakers as it is for sailors. Period.

On 6/16/2010 1:49 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 11:39 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:27:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
The Australians haven't _asked_ them for reimbursement and have
stated that they do not intend to, so why should they reimburse the
Australians?

Because it's the right thing to do. It would show them taking
responsibility for their actions. It's called 'ethics', something
which you seem to be lacking considering all your blathering about
this thread.

Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another
side of
it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other associated
groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers (or
attempted
record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider their roles
in the
eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to that effort.
Sort of
a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has been rolling around
in my
head as these conversations have unfolded. Of course - I have no idea if
that is true or not...


That concept works for me. Except that kinship may not be so much for
record breakers as it is for sailors. Period.

There's a saying in the Coast Guard: "You have to go out. You don't
have to come back."

"Mike Marlow" wrote
Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side
of it. It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other
associated groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers
(or attempted record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider
their roles in the eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to
that effort. Sort of a team member thing. This whole kinship thing has
been rolling around in my head as these conversations have unfolded. Of
course - I have no idea if that is true or not...

You seem to have an open mind about this. I'm not sure that is allowed
here.

You do have a point though. Just as the local volunteer fire departments
have a lot of dedicated people, they also have a few really gung ho types
that would rescue a beetle from a mountaintop just so they can be a part of
it.

On Jun 16, 2:21*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote

Your point on ethics is not lost, but I have to wonder about another side
of it. *It's quite possible that mariners and SAR teams, and other
associated groups might just hold a certain kinship with record breakers
(or attempted record breakers) and as a support of sorts, and consider
their roles in the eventual failure of the effort to be a contribution to
that effort. *Sort of a team member thing. *This whole kinship thing has
been rolling around in my head as these conversations have unfolded. *Of
course - I have no idea if that is true or not...

You seem to have an open mind about this. *I'm not sure that is allowed
here.

You do have a point though. *Just as the local volunteer fire departments
have a lot of dedicated people, they also have a few really gung ho types
that would rescue a beetle from a mountaintop just so they can be a part of
it.

True that about certain firefighters...They'll get that look in their
eyes just thinking about the science and adrenaline. Tom

On Jun 16, 5:21*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote

[snipped Mike's usual insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

You seem to have an open mind about this. *I'm not sure that is allowed
here.


Desk, keyboard, monitor, coffee.........thanks, Ed.