RR Urban wrote in message . ..
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
majority snipped for brevity
The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks,
loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether
Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him
return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the
"kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to
make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on
the *limited* resources available.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It appears....
There are two very polorized groups here.
Neither will be swayed.
At best, you are preaching to the choir.

Does have me wondering how the same bunch would vote on
Scott vs. Amundsen. The latter exemplified good preparation,
good leadership (made one turnback decision when wx too bad),
and good planning. The former planned for unfeasible, untested
transportation and inadequate, inadequately marked caches. He
pressed on beyond the limits of his supplies and failed to take
into account known problems, thus killing himself and everyone
with him.

At the time, Scott was almost deified as a hero, and Amundsen
almost vilified.

So...here we have a lady who planned ahead and had fuel cached,
then who scratched a flight and turned back when it became
obvious she couldn't make it to her planned fuel stop. Good
planning, pre-flight and enroute. Willing to make the hard
calls.

Then we have a chap who didn't plan ahead and had fuel cached,
and who at some point enroute made a decision to press on
rather than turn back and land somewhere he hadn't made prior
arrangements for fueling. Not willing to make the hard calls,
then expecting others to bail him out from his own failed
planning.

Naturally he must be a hero.

Sydney (Amundsen fan)