Maria Pestrikoff has given the world another danger associated with texting. Pestrikoff was texting while walking toward a cliff to toss away a cigarette. While still texting, she slipped on the grass and went over the 60-foot cliff — causing a difficult rescue in Kodiak, Alaska.
Rescuers fought to get to her before the tide came in. They reached her when the tide was only ten feet away from carrying her out.
She is now recovering. When an accident like this is caused by negligence, should the person be required to pay for the part of the rescue? I have long taken the view that such services should not be charged to citizens, even in cases of negligence. However, there is a growing trend in charging citizens for rescues. What do you think?
Source: Daily Mail
Every day I see people walking and texting. Generally they simply trip on a curb or walk into someone. This shows you just how dangerous and stupid texting while walking is.
There is no benefit from such a tactic or indeed a need for it. To paraphrase Martin’s The Hound, a dog needs no courage to attack rats. Just so, he needs no subterfuge either.
================================
I used to have a little fat dog who would attack rattlesnakes. I thought he was going to die. The snakes died instead.
idealist707 1, September 29, 2012 at 4:46 am
Have a nice day. I lie when needed.
============================
I like that.
Eddie, the gene pool lifeguard left long ago because nobody would listen to her and the pay and benefits package were inadequate. That is how we came to be where we find ourselves and each other now. But since we’re here, when someone falls off a cliff, we need to pick her back up, dust her off, and chip in from our common pockets for the privilege. That’s only just until we can straighten out the whole damn thing, of course.
Me: Dang! Where’s the gene pool lifeguard when you need him?
Someone: He’s on smoke break.
Me: Sounds about right.
” 93 Moderator, Self Induced
1, September 29, 2012 at 10:56 am
Is this where we come to the point of saying that this is where peoples real identifies are not safe? No wonder people have issues with you and the safety of the Internet.”
Are you pointing at me? Would appreciate the courtesy of naming me instead of the nebulous “you”
Choice is yours, of course.
Am curious as only approving words have gone from me to you so far as I remember. So if it is me, let’s hear it.
Myself, I have no knowledge of the identities of people here, although there are those who claim to know mine. Mike Spindell finally got Anonomously Yours to stop calling me a puppet. How as GB is his secret. And he publicly said so to AY.
I like to keep my fights and discussions here, and would never seek anyone out.
So, what do you say?
When she threw here cigarette into the environment the lord stepped in and told her on the text message to take two steps forward. She forgets this part because the lord caused a memory block. Praise the Lard on Sunday and on Monday cook with Crisco.
Rule #1 – JT makes the rules.
Rule #2 – Should you have a question about the rules, see Rule #1.
Rule #3 – Posters may post anonymously and their identities (should they be or become known to the host, guest bloggers or third party posters) will not be revealed here by the host or the guest bloggers under any circumstances. Should a poster’s real identity be discovered and publicly revealed here (without permission of the party identified) by a third party poster or guest blogger, such revelations will result in said third party or guest blogger being banned (possibly permanently).
Rule #4 – Hijacking another user’s identity – real or pseudonymous – will result in the hijacker being banned (possibly permanently).
Rule #5 – Civility is highly encouraged.
Those are the only hard and fast rules here that I know of other than the four words that trigger automatic moderation (*sshole, f*ck, b*tch and b*stard).
If you have any problems with any of the other posters, GB’s, the host or the policies of this blog as set by the host, you are free to raise your objections to the host. You are also free post elsewhere. This is not only a free speech zone, it is a free association zone. Anyone’s participation in this forum, while generally appreciated, is strictly voluntary. You are not compelled to post here (unless you are a paid troll which would make any chaffing you experience under the minimal rules presented entirely your problem).
The proper place to register any complaints is in the Corrections thread (which may also be used for editorial corrections and story suggestions).
mespo:
all good thoughts but it was an accident, like a ship running aground or capsizing in a storm. Should the owner of the ship be charged for the rescue?
Some of these rescues, like Woosty’s dog rescue video, are training opportunities for the crews. They are low risk with little chance of loss of human life. Seems to me they serve a positive function.
Is this where we come to the point of saying that this is where peoples real identifies are not safe? No wonder people have issues with you and the safety of the Internet.
http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/27/14129778-romney-still-silent-on-afghanistan-as-military-report-gives-the-surge-an-f?lite
Somebody badmouthed Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Said something about not being able to even listen through a whole show.
Well, we’re talking about stupid “women” who text while they are walking near cliffs, So why not introduce one who has respect for her listeners and offers a full hour (?) of rapid-fire factual analysis of the political scene.
The one linked above covers the facts that Mitt won’t touch the war in Afghanistan. He acknoweledges that there are veterans who need help, but won’t say how he is going to fix the problem. And worse of all on the consequences of war, he does not mention that his Repulbican collegues (you know the party he is leading) are blocking a routine yearly bill to increase compensation to widows and children of slain soldiers (cost of living increases). He won’t take the war in his mouth.
We don’t know what the Repubs and Mitt want to do. The convention gave no clue she ssys.
And she is not just pro-Obama, she takes up what the results of the annual stats by our military in Afghanistan per “Enemy initiated attacks” and “IED explosións”. Well, she showed quite thoroughly, with easily understood graphics, that the surge gave results alright. It has given NEGATIVE results. The surge was a riptide effect for us. There are roghtly 30% more events than in the period before the surge began. And we now have 68,000 facing death and maiming every day. What are you gonna do, Mitt? Anybody know?
She cited the longest serving Republican, Mr “Stand Pat” from Florida. What does he ssy?
Take them home immediately, is his answer. No more.
It is not worth risking young men’s lives for.
(My paraphrase)
So you see their are intelligent programs written for adults and delivered by women who can think and TALK even. Of course, she might wander over a cliff if she ever got a chance to put a question to Mitt Romney.
Mmmmm . . . lambchop. A decadent breakfast. Now if I can just remember where the mint jelly is stored. And why is it a cruel turn of fate that mint jelly is awesome on meat and terrible on a PB&J? Sometimes the questions run too deep . . .
nick,
People have been jabbing at Dennis since he first achieved high office. In the 70’s, as Mayor of Cleveland, he refused to sell off the city’s electric plant. People screamed and hollered and the banks told everybody how wrong and “stubborn” he was. Two years later he was out.
Then a funny thing happened, all those privately owned electric companies started raising their rates. Everybody was paying through the nose … except for the Cleveland residents. In hindsight, the people of Cleveland decided that stubborn little guy had saved them millions and millions of dollars … money still in every citizen’s pocket.
Dennis’ political career was reborn and he never looked back.
It’s okay to jab him … lots of the best people do. 😉
Here’s the most notorious sock-puppeteer of all time:
id707,
It’s a matter of logic. Why would I bother to use a sock puppet to insult you when I am perfectly willing and able to do so directly? Hmm? It would be quite easy for those responsible for this blog to find out if sock puppets were being used by the GBs or anyone else. There is no benefit from such a tactic or indeed a need for it. To paraphrase Martin’s The Hound, a dog needs no courage to attack rats. Just so, he needs no subterfuge either.
I’ve made no bones about that I think you’re mentally unstable and a douche bag on top it in the past and indeed I responded to your baseless accusations this time with a direct attack against you. (Speaking of predictable, isn’t it time for you to cry about what a victim you are now that you’ve attacked someone else?)
So you tell us . . . what is the possible reason I would need or even want to use a sock puppet to deal with you?
Come on.
Make as cogent and rational a case as your demented lil’ mind can muster.
If you make a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you. If you – as you admit – cannot prove your claim? You had better have logic to back your assertion. If you have no logic (and clearly in light of my response you don’t because clearly I have no need of subterfuge if I want to simply insult you), then your claim of me using sock puppets is simply more meaningless trollish gibberish from you that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Other than being a display of brazen stupidity and distraction much like that of the errant littering texter.
Blouise, Don’t get me wrong,. I always have a place in my heart for quixotic people. Kucinich is just such an easy target. It was a guilty pleasure jabbing him.
GeneH,
Now how can anyone prove you were the puppet. Covered there of course.
AY suspected mo of being a puppet for a long while.
Now he’s back with general cranky unspecified stuff.
But your reasoning, speaking, argumentation ways are clearly established here. Someone mentioned that Read my Blog was possibly a puppet. Voilá—to make a long story short. It matched with you know who.
I want waste my time trying to prove or demonstrate. Content to say it was GeneH’s hand.
Using the same GeneH insults, aspersions, undefined diffuse pejerative accusations, same argumentation structure, choice of arguments from the standard shelf, etc.
I won’t bother answering your usual put-downs this time. It is wasted breath. I will just say that such obsessive behavior would be a matter of concern if you were committed.
Now have the last word, It will be as usual, highly insulting and invective filled. Predictable you are.
Have a nice day. I lie when needed.
Sorry, my link to the Library of Congress doesn’t work.
Go to the Library of Congress website and key in “H.RES.799” in the search box to find the Articles of Impeachment information.
bettykath, Blouise, et.al.-
Sorry to bring up a topic and then bail out. I found the info I was looking for on the Library of Congress website.
Blouise- H.RES.333 was the original Articles of Impeachment (4-24-2007) against Dick Cheney, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it died.
H.RES.799 (11-6-2007) was the same Articles of Impeachment against Cheney introduced a second time. This was the one I saw on C-SPAN.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.Res799:
Click on “All Information” for the sequence of events, which was pretty much as I remembered it. Click on “Text of Legislation” to read the Articles of Impeachment. The roll call votes are also listed.
I have to admit to a lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure, so I can’t explain exactly what the three votes meant, but ultimately the bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, then to a sub-committee where it died again.
The original bill had 27 co-sponsors. Apparently the House had lost the stomach to impeach Cheney- the second bill had only 1 co-sponsor.