Some shocking news

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Just as a matter of interest, how much connectivity would you want between incidents? It could hardly be the same individual, he got flame grilled at the first substation.

i know that i was merely clarifying the point for Flyboy who's post seemed to suggest that there was more of a connection

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

i know that i was merely clarifying the point for Flyboy who's post seemed to suggest that there was more of a connection

Oops, a bit of a typo there, should have read "UNconnected." But now duly corrected at source.

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

little snip!


No, that is neither normal, nor is it right minded.

Normal to whom you or the person next to you. Just because you think it isnt normal doesnt mean that your right or wrong for that fact, its just your aproach to normality.
So because someone doesnt agree with your idea of normal doesnt make them wrong. Thats why we are individuals who have individual ideals and morals.
Shall we all bow before thee and follow thy principle or shall we all be individuals who can make our own minds up without fear or retribution from the all knowing.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Not sure about that, what about Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot? Bin Laden?

may they rest in peace

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Just as a matter of interest, how much connectivity would you want between incidents? It could hardly be the same individual, he got flame grilled at the first substation.

I thought only Burgerking did flame grilled.

[Mr Angry]

How come none of you posters championing death as being entirely "deserved" in circumstances where it comes about as a result of someones own actions in circumstances where an individual should "know better" appear to be posting in the Solent sea cadet thread?

Should that kid have been given a Darwin award? I don't think so.

Perhaps you do understand "human compassion" when it suits, but don't want to appear "soft"?

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

How come none of you posters championing death as being entirely "deserved" in circumstances where it comes about as a result of someones own actions in circumstances where an individual should "know better" appear to be posting in the Solent sea cadet thread?

Because that was an individual who had received some training, had a reason to be there performing that task, and did not through his own stupidity (ie forcibly gaining entry past multiple signs saying 'danger of death' accompanied by suitable pictures for the hard of thinking or non-english speaker) achieve the removal from the gene pool of himself.

Should that kid have been given a Darwin award? I don't think so.

Nope, the Darwin awards are reserved for those who spectacularly remove themselves from the gene pool through an act of unmitigated stupidity prior to procreation, hence the original crispy critter would only rate an 'honorable mention'

Perhaps you do understand "human compassion" when it suits, but don't want to appear "soft"?

Nope, the Sea Cadet was an accident, he didn't (as I stated above) break into a building surrounded by a razor topped fence with each step of his entry and progress presenting him with 'danger of death' signs in order to commit theft from a piece of equipment carrying 33KV. The sea cadet on the other hand lost his grip, fell overboard and drowned while performing a normal task on a sailing yacht.

You note the difference?

Sea Cadet = Accident, no darwin
Mr Crispy = Stupid, ignored multiple warnings, thought he knew better, Fried - Honorable mention.

[the_neurotic_cat]

Lets hope the guy's friends reconsider their life of crime.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Because that was an individual who had received some training, had a reason to be there performing that task, and did not through his own stupidity (ie forcibly gaining entry past multiple signs saying 'danger of death' accompanied by suitable pictures for the hard of thinking or non-english speaker) achieve the removal from the gene pool of himself.



Nope, the Darwin awards are reserved for those who spectacularly remove themselves from the gene pool through an act of unmitigated stupidity prior to procreation, hence the original crispy critter would only rate an 'honorable mention'



Nope, the Sea Cadet was an accident, he didn't (as I stated above) break into a building surrounded by a razor topped fence with each step of his entry and progress presenting him with 'danger of death' signs in order to commit theft from a piece of equipment carrying 33KV. The sea cadet on the other hand lost his grip, fell overboard and drowned while performing a normal task on a sailing yacht.

You note the difference?

Sea Cadet = Accident, no darwin
Mr Crispy = Stupid, ignored multiple warnings, thought he knew better, Fried - Honorable mention.

Way to totally miss a point Nikon.

1: The cadet had training - all the more reason for him not to have made a mistake and

2: "the Sea Cadet was an accident" - I doubt either individual set out that day to kill themselves intentionally through "stupidity", but there you go.

3: The Darwin question was rhetorical - hence my "I don't think so".

That aside it is, by it's own definition, an award "Honoring those who improve the species...by accidentally removing themselves from it!

You note the difference?

Yes, that's right - it makes no reference to "stupidity".

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Way to totally miss a point Nikon.

1: The cadet had training - all the more reason for him not to have made a mistake and

2: "the Sea Cadet was an accident" - I doubt either individual set out that day to kill themselves intentionally through "stupidity", but there you go.

3: The Darwin question was rhetorical - hence my "I don't think so".

That aside it is, by it's own definition, an award "Honoring those who improve the species...by accidentally removing themselves from it!

You note the difference?

Yes, that's right - it makes no reference to "stupidity".

Rules

So how are the Darwin Awards actually determined?

Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way. They are self-selected examples of the dangers inherent in a lack of common sense, and all human races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible to compete.

http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

Speaking from my own point of view here, I'd say it's pretty clear on the matter really.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

Speaking from my own point of view here, I'd say it's pretty clear on the matter really.

I must confess that The Darwin Awards are not something I'm overly familiar with - certainly not to the degree that I'd bother looking up their "rules".

Thanks for the insight.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Way to totally miss a point Nikon.

1: The cadet had training - all the more reason for him not to have made a mistake and

2: "the Sea Cadet was an accident" - I doubt either individual set out that day to kill themselves intentionally through "stupidity", but there you go.

3: The Darwin question was rhetorical - hence my "I don't think so".

That aside it is, by it's own definition, an award "Honoring those whoyspy improve the species...by accidentally removing themselves from it!

You note the difference?

Yes, that's right - it makes no reference to "stupidity".

are you taking over GaryL's job of posting rubbish while he's on suspension ?

in the case of the sea cadet of course there will much sympathy it wasn't his fault ,he died doing what was required of him

in the case of mr crispy it was all his own doing he thought he new better than physics in this case my sympathy goes to his children for having a father who didn't care enough about them to ensure his own welbeing so he care for them

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

are you taking over GaryL's job of posting rubbish while he's on suspension ?

Perhaps the context is a bit too intricate for you to comprehend Marty but no, I wouldn't want to knock your crown.

Originally Posted by martyh

in the case of the sea cadet of course there will much sympathy it wasn't his fault ,he died doing what was required of him

Currently it would appear that he died not as a result of doing what was required of him but rather as a result of doing what was required of him whist not employing sufficient safety requirements (common sense or otherwise) given the nature of the activity he was involved in.

On the matter of "doing what was required of him" perhaps the guy at the powerstation was attempting to provide for his children by stealing the copper? Who knows? Either way your crass indignance speaks volumes.

In any event I'm not seeking to belittle either death for comedic laughs nor, as you are given to, making derisory comments at the expense of someone elses dignity - or indeed the dignity of their families - simply because they lost their lives due to an oversight or lack of judgement on their part.

Originally Posted by martyh

in the case of mr crispy it was all his own doing he thought he new better than physics in this case my sympathy goes to his children for having a father who didn't care enough about them to ensure his own welbeing so he care for them

Referring to their father as "mr crispy" and making derisory comments about him not caring enough is a funny way of showing sympathy to his children. I'm sure, like the loss of their father, your "sympathy" is something they could well do without having to bear.

[speedfreak]

Originally Posted by martyh

in the case of mr crispy it was all his own doing he thought he new better than physics in this case my sympathy goes to his children for having a father who didn't care enough about them to ensure his own welbeing so he care for them

Lets hope they dont view this thread at some point and see their father was refered to as "mr crispy"

[peanut]

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Lets hope they dont view this thread at some point and see their father was refered to as "mr crispy"

I laughed when I read it, as I took it in context, it was funny. What I think about what the family must be going through isn't for me consider in some respect, I really can't muster the emotion or compassion to say I feel anything for the family. If that's wrong for some then so be it, we're different, agree to disagree.

I do have a sick sense of humour and there's nothing wrong with that, from what I've seen here I can see some clearly are lacking in humour. ( I know I've let myself wide open as I can see posts saying death/humour/sick/wrong etc etc).

As for the little boy, I don't think one person here sees that tragedy as comical in any way shape for form, how anyone can see any relevance of the two I don't know.