|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
Maritime experts agreed that evacuation procedures should have begun as soon as the ferry began to experience problems. That's long been in evidence.
|
And what if the ferry hadn't sank but instead just continued at a list and hundreds of Korean students many of whom, if Dave's is to be believed, can't swim, were told to jump overboard and drowned? Do you think those experts would be saying the same thing? They'd be saying "Until it is confirmed that the ship is going to sink, the best place for passengers to stay is on the ship, especially if it is listing and cargo is falling down the deck", as was reported.
Now there is a fair and reasonable case to be made that there were insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Something I am perfectly willing to accept. We can rightfully condemn the ferry company for ignoring the lessons of Titanic 1912. But the decision on whether or not to evacuate is one of those decisions that I believe is one that is not so clear cut. 60% of the time it might be right to evacuate. 40% of the time it might not be. Those are odds to suggest a course of action, but not so much as to condemn one for choosing the other if they are the person on the scene.
It very easily could have been that the ship just remained at a list and the captain orders everyone overboard and a bunch of people drown. In that case people would be condemning him for a premature evacuation. I say, condemn the company for negligence and overloading. Condemn the captain for setting sail without insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Condemn him for not seeing everyone of the raft. But don't condemn him over this evacuation decision. That is not a clear cut decision in my opinion.
Furthermore, if you condemn him over the abandon ship decision that removes liability from the company for overloading their vessel and having insufficient life rafts. You do realize that the company is happy to blame the captain over his abandon ship order, right? That means the company is not liable. That line of thought means it was the captain who messed up, not the company. You're playing right into their hands.
The captain deserves to go down for his cowardly decision to abandon ship without looking after the passengers, but not for failing to order an evacuation or that some impracticable 5 minute evacuation timetable wasn't executed. It's like the people who said the captain wasn't at the helm and that was negligence. That was proven to be the false assertion of a lynch mob. No way the ships captain should spend over 8 hours at the helm, much less the 2-4 hours that, as I understand, are standard on ships for an officer on watch.
| Quote: |
| the credibility of this expert is hard to question without some evidence. Do you have any? |
We have the timetable offered, the expert witnesses qualifications, and the stated degree of list. We also have the fact that that timetable required both evacuees and rescuing ships to place themselves on the listing side of a capsizing ship in close proximity in order to successfully follow that timetable. Furthermore, the timetable had the caveat of "no panic" and seemed to make no allowance for disabled or elderly persons.
You allegedly have critical thinking skills. I'd think that anyone with those skills would see some serious potential problems with that timeframe and the scenario outlined.
What's incredible is that acceptance of this timeframe requires people to abandon previously accepted beliefs of Koreans not being able to swim and to proceed in a calm and orderly fashion. Something many people here regularly disparage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
metalhead
Joined: 18 May 2010
Location: Toilet
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is Steelrails defending the actions of the Sewol's crew that led to the death of children again? See this is what happens when you are the son of an ace fighter pilot and grow up in the 'hood while learning everything there is to know about crop dusting and being an MMA expert who is also a renowned historian that is well-versed in four extinct languages: You end up with no heart.
Steelrails is so cold I don't think he even exists in a biological sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| metalhead wrote: |
Is Steelrails defending the actions of the Sewol's crew that led to the death of children again? See this is what happens when you are the son of an ace fighter pilot and grow up in the 'hood while learning everything there is to know about crop dusting and being an MMA expert who is also a renowned historian that is well-versed in four extinct languages: You end up with no heart.
Steelrails is so cold I don't think he even exists in a biological sense. |
So are you able to argue the facts and data or are personal insults based on lies and exaggerations all that you have to offer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The captain screwed the pooch, but the root cause of the deaths is widespread corruption and money in envelopes passed between businesses and the government agencies who are supposed to regulate them and protect the public. Since it's just going to continue being business as usual anyway, they should just let the fall guy for the mess go home and sleep in his own bed in his own home with his wife, just like the corrupt government agents are doing tonight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
Maritime experts agreed that evacuation procedures should have begun as soon as the ferry began to experience problems. That's long been in evidence.
|
And what if the ferry hadn't sank but instead just continued at a list and hundreds of Korean students many of whom, if Dave's is to be believed, can't swim, were told to jump overboard and drowned? Do you think those experts would be saying the same thing? They'd be saying "Until it is confirmed that the ship is going to sink, the best place for passengers to stay is on the ship, especially if it is listing and cargo is falling down the deck", as was reported.
Now there is a fair and reasonable case to be made that there were insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Something I am perfectly willing to accept. We can rightfully condemn the ferry company for ignoring the lessons of Titanic 1912. But the decision on whether or not to evacuate is one of those decisions that I believe is one that is not so clear cut. 60% of the time it might be right to evacuate. 40% of the time it might not be. Those are odds to suggest a course of action, but not so much as to condemn one for choosing the other if they are the person on the scene.
It very easily could have been that the ship just remained at a list and the captain orders everyone overboard and a bunch of people drown. In that case people would be condemning him for a premature evacuation. I say, condemn the company for negligence and overloading. Condemn the captain for setting sail without insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Condemn him for not seeing everyone of the raft. But don't condemn him over this evacuation decision. That is not a clear cut decision in my opinion.
Furthermore, if you condemn him over the abandon ship decision that removes liability from the company for overloading their vessel and having insufficient life rafts. You do realize that the company is happy to blame the captain over his abandon ship order, right? That means the company is not liable. That line of thought means it was the captain who messed up, not the company. You're playing right into their hands.
The captain deserves to go down for his cowardly decision to abandon ship without looking after the passengers, but not for failing to order an evacuation or that some impracticable 5 minute evacuation timetable wasn't executed. It's like the people who said the captain wasn't at the helm and that was negligence. That was proven to be the false assertion of a lynch mob. No way the ships captain should spend over 8 hours at the helm, much less the 2-4 hours that, as I understand, are standard on ships for an officer on watch.
| Quote: |
| the credibility of this expert is hard to question without some evidence. Do you have any? |
We have the timetable offered, the expert witnesses qualifications, and the stated degree of list. We also have the fact that that timetable required both evacuees and rescuing ships to place themselves on the listing side of a capsizing ship in close proximity in order to successfully follow that timetable. Furthermore, the timetable had the caveat of "no panic" and seemed to make no allowance for disabled or elderly persons.
You allegedly have critical thinking skills. I'd think that anyone with those skills would see some serious potential problems with that timeframe and the scenario outlined.
What's incredible is that acceptance of this timeframe requires people to abandon previously accepted beliefs of Koreans not being able to swim and to proceed in a calm and orderly fashion. Something many people here regularly disparage. |
Steelrails, could you elaborate on this point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
Maritime experts agreed that evacuation procedures should have begun as soon as the ferry began to experience problems. That's long been in evidence.
|
And what if the ferry hadn't sank but instead just continued at a list and hundreds of Korean students many of whom, if Dave's is to be believed, can't swim, were told to jump overboard and drowned? Do you think those experts would be saying the same thing? They'd be saying "Until it is confirmed that the ship is going to sink, the best place for passengers to stay is on the ship, especially if it is listing and cargo is falling down the deck", as was reported.
Now there is a fair and reasonable case to be made that there were insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Something I am perfectly willing to accept. We can rightfully condemn the ferry company for ignoring the lessons of Titanic 1912. But the decision on whether or not to evacuate is one of those decisions that I believe is one that is not so clear cut. 60% of the time it might be right to evacuate. 40% of the time it might not be. Those are odds to suggest a course of action, but not so much as to condemn one for choosing the other if they are the person on the scene.
It very easily could have been that the ship just remained at a list and the captain orders everyone overboard and a bunch of people drown. In that case people would be condemning him for a premature evacuation. I say, condemn the company for negligence and overloading. Condemn the captain for setting sail without insufficient life rafts and flotation devices. Condemn him for not seeing everyone of the raft. But don't condemn him over this evacuation decision. That is not a clear cut decision in my opinion.
Furthermore, if you condemn him over the abandon ship decision that removes liability from the company for overloading their vessel and having insufficient life rafts. You do realize that the company is happy to blame the captain over his abandon ship order, right? That means the company is not liable. That line of thought means it was the captain who messed up, not the company. You're playing right into their hands.
The captain deserves to go down for his cowardly decision to abandon ship without looking after the passengers, but not for failing to order an evacuation or that some impracticable 5 minute evacuation timetable wasn't executed. It's like the people who said the captain wasn't at the helm and that was negligence. That was proven to be the false assertion of a lynch mob. No way the ships captain should spend over 8 hours at the helm, much less the 2-4 hours that, as I understand, are standard on ships for an officer on watch.
| Quote: |
| the credibility of this expert is hard to question without some evidence. Do you have any? |
We have the timetable offered, the expert witnesses qualifications, and the stated degree of list. We also have the fact that that timetable required both evacuees and rescuing ships to place themselves on the listing side of a capsizing ship in close proximity in order to successfully follow that timetable. Furthermore, the timetable had the caveat of "no panic" and seemed to make no allowance for disabled or elderly persons.
You allegedly have critical thinking skills. I'd think that anyone with those skills would see some serious potential problems with that timeframe and the scenario outlined.
What's incredible is that acceptance of this timeframe requires people to abandon previously accepted beliefs of Koreans not being able to swim and to proceed in a calm and orderly fashion. Something many people here regularly disparage. |
You obviously do not have critical thinking skills. You're not thinking at all.
You don't have any evidence and there is no we. Stop lying. Stop erecting strawmen.
Your ifs, ands, and buts don't change what should have been done. It's as obvious as your two floppy ears, blind rabbit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why can't blame be spread around? I see a lot of ppl at fault in all of this. There's enough to pile it on a whole bunch of door steps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Why can't blame be spread around? I see a lot of ppl at fault in all of this. There's enough to pile it on a whole bunch of door steps. |
They have arrested others besides the crew and captain. Yoo is dead (maybe) so they can't go after him. CG officials have been sacked.
But because others are guilty as well, is that any reason to defend the Sewol captain?
BTW, your post above is a good summary of all the things that went wrong and of all those involved. The thread could have ended there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I'm just thinking that in addition to the captain and crew, there are a number of others that need to face the axe.
Steel's posts sometimes read as if he's mitigating some of the blame. I'm not sure if he is or not. IMO, we can just pile on more. I'll say the captain is 100% at fault. The inspectors are 80%. The Coast Guard 70%.
Is my math bad? I don't give a frak. They all need to face justice of some sort or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a systemic issue, not an individual one. The captain isn't the cause of the problem, he's merely a symptom of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
You obviously do not have critical thinking skills. You're not thinking at all.
You don't have any evidence and there is no we. Stop lying. Stop erecting strawmen.
Your ifs, ands, and buts don't change what should have been done. It's as obvious as your two floppy ears, blind rabbit. |
So from here on out, you will always believe Korean "experts"? Glad to have you on record for that. Do you also agree that Kimchi stops bird flu? Fan death? Dolphin *beep* for "stamina"?
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Steel's posts sometimes read as if he's mitigating some of the blame. I'm not sure if he is or not. |
Not at all, but the captain is being held at fault for 1)Negligence in securing the vessel before it set out 2)Failing to order abandon ship as soon as something happened 3)Cowardice in abandoning the ship and failing to assist other passengers.
Charges 1 and 3 seem open and shut and should be enough to put him prison for life or a firing squad if you believe in firm justice. Charge 2 seems REALLY iffy to me. Those things seem to rely on someone having perfect information and being able to predict the future. Ships can list severely for hours and hours. Some may roll over quickly. Waters may be cold and people overboard could die before help comes, in which case staying on board is the safer course of action. You can't say "Well now that we know the ship was going to sink and rescue crews were going to be prompt, he was wrong". You have to go with the information available at the time.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Yeah, I'm just thinking that in addition to the captain and crew |
Well, if I was a lawyer for the ferry company, I would be jumping for joy at that computer scenario because it implies that none of the deaths were the result of overloading, but solely because of poor decisions by the captain. It implies that the vessel WAS safe if all of this could have been accomplished in minutes with no death. The company may be responsible for an accident, but the crew is responsible for the deaths. Less liability.
But I don't agree with that. I don't think that evacuation scenario is feasible and relies on ideal conditions and unrealistic expectations and a potentially dangerous rescue plan (putting rescue vessels underneath a capsizing vessel). You have to look at who and what caused the situation in the first place and don't give them an inch of wiggle room.
===============================================
And atwood, please don't go off and with some "So SR thinks he's a lawyer now..." We're all free to speculate on a variety of things. Every poster does it. You do it and I don't scream that you think you're some expert. I look at what you say and if it has merit and sound logic, then its fine. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. An amateur can still be right and a professional is not always right. You have to use critical thinking skills to evaluate what they are saying, not personal insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
You obviously do not have critical thinking skills. You're not thinking at all.
You don't have any evidence and there is no we. Stop lying. Stop erecting strawmen.
Your ifs, ands, and buts don't change what should have been done. It's as obvious as your two floppy ears, blind rabbit. |
So from here on out, you will always believe Korean "experts"? Glad to have you on record for that. Do you also agree that Kimchi stops bird flu? Fan death? Dolphin *beep* for "stamina"?
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Steel's posts sometimes read as if he's mitigating some of the blame. I'm not sure if he is or not. |
Not at all, but the captain is being held at fault for 1)Negligence in securing the vessel before it set out 2)Failing to order abandon ship as soon as something happened 3)Cowardice in abandoning the ship and failing to assist other passengers.
Charges 1 and 3 seem open and shut and should be enough to put him prison for life or a firing squad if you believe in firm justice. Charge 2 seems REALLY iffy to me. Those things seem to rely on someone having perfect information and being able to predict the future. Ships can list severely for hours and hours. Some may roll over quickly. Waters may be cold and people overboard could die before help comes, in which case staying on board is the safer course of action. You can't say "Well now that we know the ship was going to sink and rescue crews were going to be prompt, he was wrong". You have to go with the information available at the time.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Yeah, I'm just thinking that in addition to the captain and crew |
Well, if I was a lawyer for the ferry company, I would be jumping for joy at that computer scenario because it implies that none of the deaths were the result of overloading, but solely because of poor decisions by the captain. It implies that the vessel WAS safe if all of this could have been accomplished in minutes with no death. The company may be responsible for an accident, but the crew is responsible for the deaths. Less liability.
But I don't agree with that. I don't think that evacuation scenario is feasible and relies on ideal conditions and unrealistic expectations and a potentially dangerous rescue plan (putting rescue vessels underneath a capsizing vessel). You have to look at who and what caused the situation in the first place and don't give them an inch of wiggle room.
===============================================
And atwood, please don't go off and with some "So SR thinks he's a lawyer now..." We're all free to speculate on a variety of things. Every poster does it. You do it and I don't scream that you think you're some expert. I look at what you say and if it has merit and sound logic, then its fine. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. An amateur can still be right and a professional is not always right. You have to use critical thinking skills to evaluate what they are saying, not personal insults. |
And I'm free to call such speculation hogwash and to question why one would engage in it, to question why you want to defend the indefensible?
That you have to begin your post with an either-or statement, an obvious fallacy, shows you know you don't have a leg to stand on, that you don't have any evidence to back up your "speculations."
BTW, the testimony reported in the article doesn't let the shipping company off the hook. Think about it, counselor. Of course, that you can think is purely speculation on my part. |
|
| 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
