Are -you- capable of discussing the issue? (That would be like agreeing or disagreeing with the statements above or suggesting something else.)
Dale B. Dalrymple
Certainly. Any time you care to abandon the
ad hominem,
non-sequitur, straw argument and hypothesis contrary to fact as your primary rhetorical devices, I am all yours. Until then, I believe my endorsement of Bob's position is all that is warranted.
I'll take that as a no. You have a lot of names you like to call. Actually, I tried to get away from the turmoil between me and Bob. I asked you to take a free shot at what I had suggested to Bob and he had been unwilling to comment. I didn't expect you to agree on content or form. You chose to leave that out of the quote leading out your post the question I asked you:
...
Having a Spot with a cancel button does not make the Spot to only means of communication available. If the situation was significant enough to require calling for a SAR then it's worth doing whatever it takes, including hiking your butt to a trail head and getting into communication with the applicable authorities to close out the response.
...
saltydog, that's my "Discuss."
I really would like to have seen what your analysis of the point I posted to you or what you thought Bob's position meant in your own words, without just quotes from his posts to see if I was just misunderstand what he meant but couldn't be enticed to say in any other way I might understand better. Bob quotes my entire post but refuses to comment on the only points where I think we differ. It may be that I agree with the content but object only to the means of expression (sorry, that's a type of distinction I think is important), but people who refuse to try to communicate like you and Bob at this point in the thread can't be forced to. You're the ones calling names and refusing to communicate.
Dale B. Dalrymple
