Comments by sevendolphins
Page 1 of 19 | Next
3 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 12:01 p.m.
Those who jumped to the conclusion that it was Westmont students really need to look at themselves in the mirror and reflect.
On the other hand, SBCC is ducking responsibility. They should have a all-campus meeting to discuss this, they should start a fire-safety (and other emergency-safety) program, perhaps a mandatory course.
College students are careless and risk takers. We have 3 major institutions of higher education in town, and actually their benefits far outweigh the costs.
Nevertheless, Serban's comments are inappropriate. Lots of vitriol has been tossed at Patty Laney (called a hitchhiker when she was not; a UCSB student in the late 1970's murdered by a crazy), David Attias, Eric Frimpong... and for sure UCSB/IV have been roundly criticized for not doing better. Your critic is your friend, because they make you stronger.
SBCC needs to get realistic about seriously addressing the ignorant and dangerous behavior of its share of the local college students.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 5:57 a.m.
Yes, these 10 young adults made a foolhardy bonfire. Do we know beyond all reasonable doubt that the embers of that bonfire caused the Tea fire? I don't think so, and if their are a few among the young adults with good lawyers, they might well evade all responsibility, unless their happens to be a security video camera on the area that shows no other human visitors and a flare-up of the embers after 13 hours of nothing else going on.
The ones who will get punished will be the honest, remorseful and poor among the 10 young adults who can't afford attorneys. They'll be shredded like red meat by sharks. The other young adults' attorneys will focus all blame on the honest, remorseful, and poor.
Welcome to America.
Homes in Goleta were protected by the groves of avocados and lemons, but in Montecito, people live right up against the mountains. Perhaps that is foolhardy also.
3 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 18 at 8:09 p.m.
Well, we don't know for sure that they are from Westmont... could be SBCC or UCSB. It might not have been clear to them that the bonfire, seemingly put out early in the morning, was the origin of the fire, and if this does go to court, it will probably be darned hard to prove it. Who is to say that one of the 10 didn't go back and make a little fire the next day to recreate the spirit of the previous activity? Or maybe even another friend who missed the first event and recreated it for themselves in the afternoon?
This is a terrible tragedy but don't compound the tragedy by jumping to conclusions.
Posted on November 13 at 5:27 a.m.
Dr. McGinnes/Kratatoa/nonni/Axman/eightdolphins/etc, you of course are an expert on inventing fictitious alter-egos, and can't get the topic off your mind.
See you at the ribbon-cutting for the barrier.
Posted on November 12 at 5:54 p.m.
The power here is being used to save lives. What you see, Dr. McGinnes, as clear and unambiguous evidence, is not seen as clear and unambiguous evidence by the decision makers in this case.
There is no abuse here, nothing unlawful, and certainly no malice as you imply.
Just a different conclusion from the same facts.
There is no evidence that overall suicide rates decrease when human barriers are implemented, by the way.
Your publicity is certainly a good candidate for inciting the copy cat incidents.
Posted on November 11 at 4:50 p.m.
Well, Dr. McGinnes, litigation is never necessary, it is a choice. It is certainly your right to choose to initiate litigation, and cause the further expenditure of public funds to mount a defense. However, your previous arguments that the project was already expensive would seem a bit hollow, should the judgment go against you and the barrier be built anyway.
You and your group certainly have drawn attention to this issue, and generated a fair amount of publicity with your dress-ups, street theater, and name calling (the nanny state in drag). If there is copy-cat behavior, you must shoulder some of the responsibility. It is not really honorable to cast all the responsibility on the Sheriff, whose department at least responds to suicidal behavior on the bridge, and tries to stop it, unlike you and your group.
Posted on November 11 at 5:55 a.m.
Kratatoa, its mostly about personal vendettas and attacks for you, isn't it... giving fingers, debasing motivations, getting people on the stand and staging an inquisition... perhaps you'd like subject them to the comfy chair, or to throw barrier supporters in a well... if they sink they were innocent, if they float they are guilty.
Maybe barrier supporters simply have made an earnest judgment based on the data that the barrier is most likely to save lives, nothing more, nothing less.
Different people judge data differently, and it is understandable that some people would judge that the data is not convincing that barriers save lives.
As to you're comment `Barriers don't reduce suicides overall,' that is too strong. A more accurate statement is `Garrett Glasgow's attempts to determine whether barriers influence the overall suicide rate have failed.' That failure comes without prejudice one way or the other as whether barriers influence the overall suicide rate.
Actually, there is so much variation (`noise') in the overall suicide rate that the contribution from bridge barriers will always be buried beneath that noise; Glasgows attempts to reduce the influence of the noise by using large quantities of data unfortunately failed.
Posted on November 10 at 12:26 p.m.
For the record, I'm not StoptheTragedy or involved with that organization, although I agree with them.
Two close friends of mine committed suicide, one with a gun, one by a drug overdose.
I agree with StoptheTragedy that the Seiden study is strong evidence that would-be bridge jumpers who are deterred do not go on to find alternate methods of suicide.
I don't think suicidal people who are contemplating a bridge jump carefully plan their actions. As I've said, there are people who plan everything down to committing suicide in a body bag in a coffin, with all documents (wills, transfers of retirement funds, etc) taken care of.
Those people don't seek bridges to jump off of. Bridge jumpers are impulsive and don't follow the news carefully. A barrier will really help such people.
BTW, on the Golden Gate Bridge, there is a `human barrier' of cameras and rapid response. Existence of that system had not deterred or reduced suicidal people flocking to the Golden Gate.
There is little if any evidence that deterrence in one location causes an increase in suicides at other locations.
If anything the evidence (oven gas in the UK, for example) leans toward deterrence reducing the whole rate of suicide.
I find the anti-barrier folks to be overly focused on personal attacks of various sorts, including credentials arguments, focusing on emotional reasons to support the barrier (like personal experience with suicide), name-calling (the nanny state in drag, costumes of Caltrans shedding dollars, etc). Phooey.
It is grew that Caltrans with the support of the Sheriff and SBCAG is just getting on with it and ignoring the hue and cry of the opponents.
Posted on November 9 at 8:43 p.m.
I think $3 million over 30 years for a barrier compared to $1,200 million over 30 years for mental health services represents a reasonable balance. I'd not ever argue to cap mental health or to divert all barrier money to mental health. But 0.3% on a barrier is a reasonable balance.
There is strong evidence that a barrier gives potential suicide jumpers more time to consider alternatives.
Page 1 of 19 | Next
Previous Month
5 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 3:07 p.m.
Ray Ford for President, oh, er, maybe Secretary General of the UN....well, maybe head of the new CCC.
Thanks Ray, I agree with you. The Sheriff really mistepped in this case.
Pam Lopker is really kooky... didn't she complain that Westmont faculty kids weren't good enough for Cold Springs?
The neighbors moved in knowing full well that Westmont is a college and that a college must always keep up with its competitors. A pox on Pam Lopker and all her vinegary dried up old deadbeat friends.
I hope Westmont expands much more than their plan called for. The neighbors deserve it!
On Westmont College Owed a Public Apology