Text 4895, 54 rader
Skriven 2005-01-11 22:19:42 av Ken Bowley (1:114/485)
   Kommentar till text 4837 av Gordon Lewicky (1:153/307)
Ärende: Re: US/Austrailian knowledge (was: Motorcycles (was: Pee-Four))
=======================================================================
Gordon Lewicky wrote to Ken Bowley:

GL> Oh gimme a break! he did it during one of his zoo shows. Of course
GL> it was a publicity stunt! It was pre-planned out. It didn't "just
GL> happen" He knew full well what he was going to do. That's a stunt!

He did not plan on it becoming an international incident.  Yes he did it on
purpose, and I feel that he took precautions to make sure that Bob was
safe.
  
GL> I'm amazed that just because nothing happened that people like you
GL> shut your eyes to the possibilities of what might have happened
GL> and still condone it. It was a dumb stunt. If the kid was older,
GL> 5 or 6, I would see nothing wrong with that, but not a helpless
GL> baby!

As you just said, nothing happend.  Precautions were taken, and any risks were
minimized.  I wouldn't say that I "condone" what he did, because I don't feel
that he put his child in danger with what he did.
  
GL> How and why do you guys come up with arguments like this? Just
GL> because you want to argue, and could care less about a parent's
GL> responsibility to their children or one persons responsibility to
GL> another. I'm amazed there are people who are a shallow as you who
GL> would rather argue a stupid point and dream up dumb scenarios,
GL> just so you can think you've won the debating contest!

Now you are insulting me.  Are you saying that just because I don't agree with
your point of view, I no longer care about a parents responsibility to 
their children?  My "dumb" scenarios are just as valid (more so in my opinion)
than what what you feel "might" have happend to Bob.
 
GL> Steve was dumb, and so are you for letting your ego stop you from
GL> admitting that Steve pulled off a totally dumb stunt!

While trying to figure out how to respond to this statement, I looked up a few
words that you used.  You describe Steve, and myself, as being "dumb".  The
common definition seems to be the inability or unwillingness to speak.  The
lesser definition is being slow to learn or understand, or lacking 
intellectual
acuity.  I seriously doubt that Steve or I have any problem in speaking, and I
would have to disagree with the lack of intellectual acuity.  If Steve had 
been
slow in his learning, I dare say that he wouldn't be here today with all of
this parts intact.  His experience and high level of understanding when it
comes to animals is the reason I don't feel that his son was ever in danger
during that "stunt".
                  

    Ken...
    kbowley@bbs.trod.org

--- MBSE BBS v0.71.1 (GNU/Linux-i386)
 * Origin: The Realm of Darkness |(623)907-2858| bbs.trod.org (1:114/485)