|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I'm not comparing the whole of the Laconia incident, only that where people were told to wait for rescue in the lifeboats by the German U-Boat commander and some chose to do so and some chose not to. It's understandable why some didn't. Conditions, its an enemy captain, etc. etc. But it was the wrong thing to do. |
Actually, the ones who boarded the U-boat were worse off than the ones who didn't. The German U-boat attracted American bombers which resulted the death of around 100 Laconia passengers, with loss of a lifeboat and damage to other lifeboats. The U-boat captain had no choice but to sent them back onto the sea into their lifeboats, where those Laconia passengers were right back in the exact same position they were before they got onto the U-boat to begin with...minus the 100 or so who were killed.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| For comparison's sake, this is about the same amount of time between the impacts of the two planes on the WTC. |
You keep talking about the WTC, but as an American who worked for a decade in Corporate America, it's American culture to put profits first. Nearly every day I worked, I witnessed blue-collar workers working an illegal number of hours and fudging their logs at the implicit demand of management. It's a big reason I changed jobs. I didn't want to somehow become the fall guy and wind up in a civil suit or in jail if someone(s) got seriously injured or killed.
The corporations at the WTC could've evacuated, but the risk of losing profits took precedence over the risk of losing lives. And that's aside from the fact that the American cultural habit of picking fights and looking for trouble all around the world is what provoked the attacks to begin with. As we've always heard since we were little kids, "What goes around, comes around." A lot of people screwed up before, on, and after 9/11 and a lot of people should've lost their jobs, as a minimum, but it's our culture to anoint every American involved a "hero" when we were obviously a bunch of losers on 9/11. All day long was just one big losing streak, but everyone was a "hero." There are a lot of apologists back home, like Sean Hannity, who cannot accept that we would or could ever eff up.
Cultural traits contribute to good things and also the bad in the USA. Cultural traits contribute to good things and also the bad in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dairyairy wrote: |
This will blow holes in Steelrail's previously posted timeline
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=161239
| Quote: |
"Jeju Coast Guard called Danwon H.S. at 8:10 AM Wednesday"
And fresh speculations are rising as a personnel from Danwon Highschool claims that he or she received a phone call from the Jeju Coast Guard at around 8:10 a.m. on the day of the accident.
For the details, we now go to our Laah Hyun-kyung standing by at the news center.
Hyun-kyung, what is this about?
Daniel, the Gyeonggi-do Provincial Office of Education held a press briefing
earlier in the day.
It said the person received a call from someone who claimed to be from the Jeju Coast Guard. The caller asked for a phone number of a teacher that went on that field trip with more than 300 Danwon High School students, that they could reach saying they lost contact with the Sewol-ho ferry.
The time of the call is said to be around 8:10 a.m. Wednesday -- that's about 40 minutes before the Sewol-ho ferry is recorded to have first contacted the marine traffic service at its destination, Jeju Island.
With this development, questions about whether Jeju Coast Guard officials knew if there was something wrong with the ferry well in advance, are being raised.
If that is the case, it looks like Jeju officials might face heavy criticism for not taking emergency measures promptly.
An official investigation will determine that.
But the Jeju Coast Guard initially denies having made that call saying there is no reason for the Jeju Coast Guard to be involved since the ferry was sinking at an area that is controlled by the Coast Guard's West Regional Headquarters. |
|
So you're taking an unconfirmed report over an official transcript released by CNN? Dude, that's starting to veer into conspiracy-theory territory. That would mean there's a massive cover-up going on throughout the Korean Coast guard and involving all the passengers on the vessel to somehow give a completely different time-line. More likely is that is some attempt by a grieving teacher to cast blame on someone and whip up a frenzy. Of course investigate, but I'm not putting much stock into this random mysterious phone call at this point. If you believe that, that easily, you should go work for the Korea Times.
| Quote: |
| Why don't you tell all those parents sitting in Jindo that the Captain did the right thing? Why don't you tell all those parents that Park Jiyoung's death was un-avoidable? Go and explain to the assembled masses that the captain did the right thing. To continue to defend this captain blows my mind. And this is entirely separate from the issue of Korean culture. |
No, the captain was wrong to leave the ship as quickly as he did. I have repeatedly said that and said that he deserves to be tried for that. That alone is sufficient to condemn him. But I hate it when the rumor mill and the peanut gallery starts throwing out unfounded accusations. A general rule of thumb in any disaster/emergency situation, is that you don't make things worse until you can ensure safe evacuation. That's why first responders make sure to first secure the area. Now, it may turn out that there will be more evidence to make a case for an "everyone off now" evacuation call as soon as everything happened, but you can't apply hindsight. You have to determine if someone made the right call based on the information that was available to them. If the situation developed to such a point where a safe and practicable evacuation become untenable within a very short period of time, as it may well have been in this case, then you have to accept that.
As I said, you don't want to create a future procedure that will result in "200 drown as captain orders premature evacuation".
| Quote: |
| Actually, the ones who boarded the U-boat were worse off than the ones who didn't. The German U-boat attracted American bombers which resulted the death of around 100 Laconia passengers, with loss of a lifeboat and damage to other lifeboats. The U-boat captain had no choice but to sent them back onto the sea into their lifeboats, where those Laconia passengers were right back in the exact same position they were before they got onto the U-boat to begin with...minus the 100 or so who were killed. |
Well, that's certainly what happened. However, if they hadn't been bombed (and they had no way of knowing for sure if they would be), then it might well have been the correct decision.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the expression that hindsight is 20-20.
| Quote: |
You keep talking about the WTC, but as an American who worked for a decade in Corporate America, it's American culture to put profits first. Nearly every day I worked, I witnessed blue-collar workers working an illegal number of hours and fudging their logs at the implicit demand of management. It's a big reason I changed jobs. I didn't want to somehow become the fall guy and wind up in a civil suit or in jail if someone(s) got seriously injured or killed.
The corporations at the WTC could've evacuated, but the risk of losing profits took precedence over the risk of losing lives. And that's aside from the fact that the American cultural habit of picking fights and looking for trouble all around the world is what provoked the attacks to begin with. As we've always heard since we were little kids, "What goes around, comes around." A lot of people screwed up before, on, and after 9/11 and a lot of people should've lost their jobs, as a minimum, but it's our culture to anoint every American involved a "hero" when we were obviously a bunch of losers on 9/11. All day long was just one big losing streak, but everyone was a "hero." There are a lot of apologists back home, like Sean Hannity, who cannot accept that we would or could ever eff up.
|
First, I put up the WTC comparison to give a sense of time and how rapidly things can develop in an emergency situation.
Also, I don't think culture had much to do with the evacuation experience of the WTC. For one thing, many of the people there had already survived a terrorist bombing of the building and thus were basing their decisions off of prior experience, a reasonable thing to do. Second, for those 10 minutes between plane crashes, no one in the building knew that what had happened was a result of an attack.
What if there hadn't been a second plane and your boss on the 84th floor told people to evacuate via the stairs and someone had a heart attack and died from the exertion. He might have been held liable. In these cases there are often conflicting concerns and just because someone doesn't choose the right course of action, doesn't mean they had people's best interests at heart. However in this case, we can hold the captain responsible for that due to his being amongst the first to leave. However, we might not be able to hold him responsible for that in his previous actions. His concern might have flown out the window when he saw the boat, but up until then he might have been very concerned. Get the verdict and the assessment right. Future lives depend on it and as I keep on saying, emphasizing a certain course of action with 20-20 hindsight might prove fatal and even disastrous in future cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dairyairy
Joined: 17 May 2012
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So you're taking an unconfirmed report over an official transcript released by CNN? |
Trust? Steelrails, you should put more faith in a Korean news organization over that of a far off international news organization when covering a local korean story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dairyairy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So you're taking an unconfirmed report over an official transcript released by CNN? |
Trust? Steelrails, you should put more faith in a Korean news organization over that of a far off international news organization when covering a local korean story. |
To be fair, such reports shouldn't be automatically given a lot of weight.
Here is another supposed witness of things going wrong - which tells me that we may soon learn that this supposed Danwon High School worker is an imposter as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is reported that mythomanic/serial imposter Hong Ga Hye turned herself in to the police around 2000KST on the 20th. An arrest warrant had been issued following her fake interview with MBN on the 18th, where she falsely claimed to be a civilian diver and stated, “Government officials prevented [me] from diving and said to just fill in time and go. Survivors inside the ship have been discovered. Rescue workers told families of the missing that there was no hope.” Immediately after the interview, she had gone completely under the radar. She stated psychological stress as the reason for turning herself in.
She is also known for pretending to be former T-ara member Hwayoung’s cousin, publicly denounced the group in 2012 during the bullying controversy, effectively halting the popular Kpop group’s activities single-handedly. She is not related at all to Hwayoung. She also pretended to be a Tokyo resident during the 2011 Fukushima disaster during an MBC news interview. She is also infamous for starting dating rumors about various baseball athletes, claiming that she had dated several of them and had gotten pregnant.
http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/88861/20140421/south-korea-ferry-hong-ga-hye.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why not wait until all the facts are in? Novel concept, I admit, but one I favor.
As for evacuating the ship, taking the lack of preparedness and practice into account, along with the general lack of organization and effective communication in everyday Korean life, and then the severe listing of the ship, I wonder how successful it would have been.
Some would have been saved and at least they would have done the right thing under the circumstances, but I bet we'd still be looking at a pretty sizable loss of life.
Sorry for the derail, but I think just putting the blame on the captain and crew and locking them up without also looking at the bigger picture won't solve all that went wrong here in case of future accidents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dairyairy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So you're taking an unconfirmed report over an official transcript released by CNN? |
Trust? Steelrails, you should put more faith in a Korean news organization over that of a far off international news organization when covering a local korean story. |
The transcript is the same transcript that is being used by news organizations the world over, including every single Korean news outlet, Reuters, AP, BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc. But you have one guy claiming to work at the school and claiming he got a call an hour before from the coast guard claiming they've lost contact and NO ONE else giving any indication that this happened.
And shouldn't we be asking how the heck the Coast Guard managed to get this guy's number? Where are the phone records? This story is completely unverified and you'd think there would be a bunch of other people coming out with reports of the Coast Guard calling around Korea trying to find this missing ferry. If this were true, it would mean there is a massive conspiracy going on with the Coast Guard and every passenger is somehow in on it because they're giving the same timeline too.
Sorry, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can take a look at that and have serious doubts about its veracity. We don't need a rush to judgment. Remember, the key element in critical thinking is the thinking, not the critical. If your personal dislike of me is so strong that you're going to believe reports like that simply because it disagrees with my version, then you need to relax.
What is becoming clear is that a lot of initial reports- like the ship struck a rock, the ship was radically off course, passengers had two hours to get off the boat, that there was plenty of time to deploy life boats, that it would have been easy to evacuate people, etc. etc. are starting to look like that is not the case. Combine that with asinine assertions- The captain should be at the wheel, the captain should always be supervising (How? Shootin meth and not sleeping?) The captain should be the one on the radio, a 3rd officer should never have control of the vessel, ajossis were trampling down kids to get off the boat, everyone must have been drunk on soju, etc. etc. and we have a clear case as atwood says (scary) to wait and see.
I'm sure there will be plenty we can stone the captain and crew for in the end when it all comes out, but do at least stone them for the right reasons. As someone who grew up with aircraft pilots for parents, who were very safety conscious, I really don't like to see the panic mobs and the masses who can't be bothered to research things a little suddenly telling vehicle operators what they should and should not do without taking in very specific considerations in regards to safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neilio
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does a president have similar responsibilities to it's people? Cause it seems like the reverse, where making them safe is the priority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just had a very interesting conversation about the Sewol with a Korean co-worker of mine who is very much of the opinion that Korean culture is at fault here. He went into great detail explaining how ever since the end of WWII and the Japanese occupation - when the Korean government pretty much became a military dictatorship - that civilians have been taught to listen to and to not question authority. The same goes for students in classrooms, or in this case: on boats. And that as a result authority more often than not abuses its power. Like when a great deal of musicians were forced out of performing, or even jailed during the 60s and 70s in Korea because they voiced dissent.
Maybe even Steelrails can see that Korea does have some deeply ingrained, cultural issues. It is at least a good sign that someone like my co-worker who understands these problems can be a teacher in Korea now when a mere couple of decades ago, he wouldn't have been allowed in a classroom at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
A general rule of thumb in any disaster/emergency situation, is that you don't make things worse until you can ensure safe evacuation. That's why first responders make sure to first secure the area. Now, it may turn out that there will be more evidence to make a case for an "everyone off now" evacuation call as soon as everything happened, but you can't apply hindsight. You have to determine if someone made the right call based on the information that was available to them. If the situation developed to such a point where a safe and practicable evacuation become untenable within a very short period of time, as it may well have been in this case, then you have to accept that.
As I said, you don't want to create a future procedure that will result in "200 drown as captain orders premature evacuation". |
You continue to talk about it like there were only two options:
1. Stay in the cabins.
2. Evacuate the ship.
But what the experts and most people are criticizing the crew about is that they didn't utilize option 3: everyone onto deck and muster stations. This is the standard operating procedure and it would've resulted in far fewer kids trapped in their cabins.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Well, that's certainly what happened. However, if they hadn't been bombed (and they had no way of knowing for sure if they would be), then it might well have been the correct decision. |
It was a U-boat, on the surface of the Atlantic, during WWII. Well over 1000 of the Laconia passengers saw the end of WWII. None of the U-boat crew who tried to rescue them survived the war. They didn't even survive another six months. Very few German U-boat crews survived the war.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| For one thing, many of the people there had already survived a terrorist bombing of the building and thus were basing their decisions off of prior experience, a reasonable thing to do. Second, for those 10 minutes between plane crashes, no one in the building knew that what had happened was a result of an attack. |
The explosion of the plane hitting the building was enormous. We have all seen the videos hundreds of times. Anyone who stayed inside exercised poor judgment.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| What if there hadn't been a second plane and your boss on the 84th floor told people to evacuate via the stairs and someone had a heart attack and died from the exertion. He might have been held liable. |
Spoken like an American. "Let's not evacuate...there could be financial liabilities!" My point exactly, Steelrails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dairyairy
Joined: 17 May 2012
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| dairyairy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So you're taking an unconfirmed report over an official transcript released by CNN? |
Trust? Steelrails, you should put more faith in a Korean news organization over that of a far off international news organization when covering a local korean story. |
The transcript is the same transcript that is being used by news organizations the world over, including every single Korean news outlet, Reuters, AP, BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc. But you have one guy claiming to work at the school and claiming he got a call an hour before from the coast guard claiming they've lost contact and NO ONE else giving any indication that this happened.
And shouldn't we be asking how the heck the Coast Guard managed to get this guy's number? Where are the phone records? This story is completely unverified and you'd think there would be a bunch of other people coming out with reports of the Coast Guard calling around Korea trying to find this missing ferry. If this were true, it would mean there is a massive conspiracy going on with the Coast Guard and every passenger is somehow in on it because they're giving the same timeline too.
Sorry, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can take a look at that and have serious doubts about its veracity. We don't need a rush to judgment. Remember, the key element in critical thinking is the thinking, not the critical. If your personal dislike of me is so strong that you're going to believe reports like that simply because it disagrees with my version, then you need to relax.
What is becoming clear is that a lot of initial reports- like the ship struck a rock, the ship was radically off course, passengers had two hours to get off the boat, that there was plenty of time to deploy life boats, that it would have been easy to evacuate people, etc. etc. are starting to look like that is not the case. Combine that with asinine assertions- The captain should be at the wheel, the captain should always be supervising (How? Shootin meth and not sleeping?) The captain should be the one on the radio, a 3rd officer should never have control of the vessel, ajossis were trampling down kids to get off the boat, everyone must have been drunk on soju, etc. etc. and we have a clear case as atwood says (scary) to wait and see.
I'm sure there will be plenty we can stone the captain and crew for in the end when it all comes out, but do at least stone them for the right reasons. As someone who grew up with aircraft pilots for parents, who were very safety conscious, I really don't like to see the panic mobs and the masses who can't be bothered to research things a little suddenly telling vehicle operators what they should and should not do without taking in very specific considerations in regards to safety. |
Until all of the facts are established, and they are not, one news source is as good as another, especially with the Korean news source having more contacts in the Korean government than say CNN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
A general rule of thumb in any disaster/emergency situation, is that you don't make things worse until you can ensure safe evacuation. That's why first responders make sure to first secure the area. Now, it may turn out that there will be more evidence to make a case for an "everyone off now" evacuation call as soon as everything happened, but you can't apply hindsight. You have to determine if someone made the right call based on the information that was available to them. If the situation developed to such a point where a safe and practicable evacuation become untenable within a very short period of time, as it may well have been in this case, then you have to accept that.
As I said, you don't want to create a future procedure that will result in "200 drown as captain orders premature evacuation". |
You continue to talk about it like there were only two options:
1. Stay in the cabins.
2. Evacuate the ship.
But what the experts and most people are criticizing the crew about is that they didn't utilize option 3: everyone onto deck and muster stations. This is the standard operating procedure and it would've resulted in far fewer kids trapped in their cabins.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Well, that's certainly what happened. However, if they hadn't been bombed (and they had no way of knowing for sure if they would be), then it might well have been the correct decision. |
It was a U-boat, on the surface of the Atlantic, during WWII. Well over 1000 of the Laconia passengers saw the end of WWII. None of the U-boat crew who tried to rescue them survived the war. They didn't even survive another six months. Very few German U-boat crews survived the war.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| For one thing, many of the people there had already survived a terrorist bombing of the building and thus were basing their decisions off of prior experience, a reasonable thing to do. Second, for those 10 minutes between plane crashes, no one in the building knew that what had happened was a result of an attack. |
The explosion of the plane hitting the building was enormous. We have all seen the videos hundreds of times. Anyone who stayed inside exercised poor judgment.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| What if there hadn't been a second plane and your boss on the 84th floor told people to evacuate via the stairs and someone had a heart attack and died from the exertion. He might have been held liable. |
Spoken like an American. "Let's not evacuate...there could be financial liabilities!" My point exactly, Steelrails. |
The either/or argument is one of sr's go to moves.
But your third option is, as you say, what the experts have said is recommended in that situation.
You posterized him. (In honor of the NBA playoffs.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You continue to talk about it like there were only two options:
1. Stay in the cabins.
2. Evacuate the ship.
But what the experts and most people are criticizing the crew about is that they didn't utilize option 3: everyone onto deck and muster stations. This is the standard operating procedure and it would've resulted in far fewer kids trapped in their cabins. |
If the situation went from a slight list that may have been due as much to the turn, to people being virtually unable to move, how are you going to order people onto deck?
Within 7 minutes it had apparently reached that. During those previous 7 minutes, we don't know how long it took to reach the point of not being able to move. Until we do know that, we can't include option 3 as a viable option. Potentially it was at the very early stages, but we don't know for sure.
| Quote: |
| It was a U-boat, on the surface of the Atlantic, during WWII. Well over 1000 of the Laconia passengers saw the end of WWII. None of the U-boat crew who tried to rescue them survived the war. They didn't even survive another six months. Very few German U-boat crews survived the war. |
Yes, I know that. That's not my point. My point is that the criteria of "Someone told you to do something, the right choice is not to listen"
You cannot evaluate a person's decision based on facts and information that become clear afterwards that were unbeknownst to them at the time. Saying very few U-Boats survived the war is irrelevant to the decision making process at the time because no one had that information. No one knew how long the war would last or what the casualties would be. Why is it so hard to understand this concept? You cannot take people to task for information they lacked at the time. You can only base things off whether or not they made a logical decision given the information available to them. And in fact, two completely different decisions can both be logical.
| Quote: |
| The explosion of the plane hitting the building was enormous. We have all seen the videos hundreds of times. Anyone who stayed inside exercised poor judgment. |
I'm talking about the second tower. You're saying that they should have foreseen a second aircraft?
| Quote: |
| Spoken like an American. "Let's not evacuate...there could be financial liabilities!" My point exactly, Steelrails. |
I think a great many people of any culture would be reluctant to send people down 84 flights of stairs simply because there was an accident in an adjacent building that did not appear to pose an imminent danger to their building.
| Quote: |
| Until all of the facts are established, and they are not, one news source is as good as another, especially with the Korean news source having more contacts in the Korean government than say CNN. |
What, do you think the transcript just comes out of thin air?
One source is not as good as the next. In order for your report to be true, everyone involved, including the passengers, would have to be lying or confused or warped in time.
| Quote: |
The either/or argument is one of sr's go to moves.
But your third option is, as you say, what the experts have said is recommended in that situation.
|
But still might not have been the correct thing. Again, "12 students fall off ship and drown as captain orders dangerous 'All hands on desk', charges sought". "If he had not panicked and just ordered them to secure themselves in their cabins, they might still be alive today" families and experts were quoted as saying...
We have to wait. In the meantime we can vilify him for being one of the first off. That deserves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
You continue to talk about it like there were only two options:
1. Stay in the cabins.
2. Evacuate the ship.
But what the experts and most people are criticizing the crew about is that they didn't utilize option 3: everyone onto deck and muster stations. This is the standard operating procedure and it would've resulted in far fewer kids trapped in their cabins. |
If the situation went from a slight list that may have been due as much to the turn, to people being virtually unable to move, how are you going to order people onto deck?
Within 7 minutes it had apparently reached that. During those previous 7 minutes, we don't know how long it took to reach the point of not being able to move. Until we do know that, we can't include option 3 as a viable option. Potentially it was at the very early stages, but we don't know for sure.
| Quote: |
| It was a U-boat, on the surface of the Atlantic, during WWII. Well over 1000 of the Laconia passengers saw the end of WWII. None of the U-boat crew who tried to rescue them survived the war. They didn't even survive another six months. Very few German U-boat crews survived the war. |
Yes, I know that. That's not my point. My point is that the criteria of "Someone told you to do something, the right choice is not to listen"
You cannot evaluate a person's decision based on facts and information that become clear afterwards that were unbeknownst to them at the time. Saying very few U-Boats survived the war is irrelevant to the decision making process at the time because no one had that information. No one knew how long the war would last or what the casualties would be. Why is it so hard to understand this concept? You cannot take people to task for information they lacked at the time. You can only base things off whether or not they made a logical decision given the information available to them. And in fact, two completely different decisions can both be logical.
| Quote: |
| The explosion of the plane hitting the building was enormous. We have all seen the videos hundreds of times. Anyone who stayed inside exercised poor judgment. |
I'm talking about the second tower. You're saying that they should have foreseen a second aircraft?
| Quote: |
| Spoken like an American. "Let's not evacuate...there could be financial liabilities!" My point exactly, Steelrails. |
I think a great many people of any culture would be reluctant to send people down 84 flights of stairs simply because there was an accident in an adjacent building that did not appear to pose an imminent danger to their building.
| Quote: |
| Until all of the facts are established, and they are not, one news source is as good as another, especially with the Korean news source having more contacts in the Korean government than say CNN. |
What, do you think the transcript just comes out of thin air?
One source is not as good as the next. In order for your report to be true, everyone involved, including the passengers, would have to be lying or confused or warped in time.
| Quote: |
The either/or argument is one of sr's go to moves.
But your third option is, as you say, what the experts have said is recommended in that situation.
|
But still might not have been the correct thing. Again, "12 students fall off ship and drown as captain orders dangerous 'All hands on desk', charges sought". "If he had not panicked and just ordered them to secure themselves in their cabins, they might still be alive today" families and experts were quoted as saying...
We have to wait. In the meantime we can vilify him for being one of the first off. That deserves it. |
\
Pure crapola. And tons of it. I see you've moved up to the Snow Wolf SW0310 Wheeled Snow Shovel http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Wolf-SW0310-Wheeled-Shovel/dp/B001I7JWTO
The correct thing to do was to get on everyone on deck as quickly as possible, before the list became extreme, and have them ready to evacuate if necessary. They can always go back below if the ship can be saved.
But even with an extreme list, they have to be on deck to evacuate. There is no way around that. What you are saying is essentially this: "It could be dangerous on deck so I'll stay down here and drown in safety." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The correct thing to do was to get on everyone on deck as quickly as possible, before the list became extreme |
So on a top heavy vessel that is struggling with its balance, your solution is to send 475 people's worth of weight on deck, potentially putting people at risk for either exacerbating the problem or falling overboard?
| Quote: |
| ut even with an extreme list, they have to be on deck to evacuate. There is no way around that. What you are saying is essentially this: "It could be dangerous on deck so I'll stay down here and drown in safety." |
Ships can sometimes stay severely listed for a long period of time. It's highly unlikely that the crew had time to figure out if and how quickly the ship would sink. You can't have 475 people on deck when they have to hold onto the wall to not fall all over the place. There aren't hand holds all over the deck to do that. Again, if the crew at the time thought that the ship might be able to limp on until rescue vessels arrived, then waiting in areas where restraints were available, might be as logical a thing to do as putting people on deck. As I said, with imperfect information there can be multiple logical courses of action.
The situation became untenable in about 7-10 minutes time and possibly earlier and very rapidly, after which movement (and therefore action) became virtually impossible. This is not a perfect parallel, but in an aircraft, loss of control and loss of movement can happen in a very short period of time. Things may appear relatively stable than deteriorate in a matter of seconds. You don't eject from the plane just because there is a bit of turbulence, event though that may end up being the only way to survive as after that the pilot may be put in a situation where he cannot physically recover.
Or another one that always gets argued over- Cop stops a suspect, suspect reaches for something, cop shoots him dead, suspect was reaching for his wallet. In this case, an undesirable outcome occurred. The suspect probably shouldn't have reached for his wallet, but then might have been doing so because that's what usually happens- you take out your ID and show the cops. The cop may have been quick to pull the trigger, but he has no idea what is coming out of that pocket and only a second or two to decide. Not shooting is a logical course of action. Shooting is a logical course of action. Running up and tackling him is a logical course of action. Under different circumstances, each may be the correct thing to do, and each may result in death and disaster. You have imperfect information, little time to make a decision, and no guarantee of success. This is a concept that shouldn't be hard to understand, but most people can't seem to grasp.
Again, you need to be careful not to apply information NOW available, but unavailable to the crew, when evaluating their decision making process and must account for logical, reasonable possibilities that failed to occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MedellinHeel
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not sure why the media and everyone keeps saying x still missing. Would be safe to assume all missing people have perished. Face reality. Survivors would be highly unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
