Yachting FAIL - Jessica Watson

[s/v Beth]

(that we praise old timers for holding off due to weather and call 16yo's cowards) I must admit it is only one of many ironies in this thread....

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Stillraining

When old salts wait for a weather window we praise their decisions and if they ignore their better judgments and set off and something happens we then say they should have known better....but a young Lass does the same thing we call her coward or ill prepared?..

I have no issue with her staying in port. Bad weather is easier met in the open ocean, not close to shore.
Good seamanship? A 16 year old setting off for the roaring fourties...I wouldn't go that far.
I know the "go jessica" folks can't wait for her to go rtw just to shut us up, and to be honest, I have never wanted to be more wrong.
Erika

[surfingminniwinni]

Originally Posted by Bark

Latest news: She is afraid to go because its windy.

Windy weather delays Jessica's departure | National News | News.com.au

This would rate as the stupidest post I have ever seen on this site.

[surfingminniwinni]

Originally Posted by sarafina

We are the *cool* parents and thus the default house to gather at. These are sharp kids, with a lot on the ball

Another classic quote!!!

The fact that you think your the *cool* parents, shows just how uncool you are. You don't really understand kids at all.

But your quite happy to judge Jessica Watson and her parents, whom I'm sure you have never met, bashing them on the internet, did you tell your kids and the other sharp kids how cool that is.

Totally *uncool*

[speakeasy]

Originally Posted by surfingminniwinni

Another classic quote!!!

The fact that you think your the *cool* parents, shows just how uncool you are. You don't really understand kids at all.

But your quite happy to judge Jessica Watson and her parents, whom I'm sure you have never met, bashing them on the internet, did you tell your kids and the other sharp kids how cool that is.

Totally *uncool*

So too, are your constant personal attacks in defense of your young heroine.

[neelie]

And if he were not to defend her... who else would?

So, by your rules its o.k. for people to attack Jessica and her family, but not receive the same treatment in return?

This is after all a Cruising Forum and not a "I'm a better better Mummy than Jessica's" Forum.

[speakeasy]

Neelie, ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguing the subject have always been uncool. Defending Jessica, her decisions, her plan, her team's choices and possible motivations, does not require personal insults to an opponent on the issues at hand and are usually, in most places disallowed, and betray in their user an inability to argue one's point effectively. Perhaps it's just that everything possible at this point that can be said, has been said, ergo the mudslinging at another here on this board.

[TaoJones]

Okay, everyone please take a deep breath and carefully consider your posts before hitting the Submit Reply button. We have a rule here against personal attacks - it exists to keep one member from publicly having at another member. We enforce it diligently.

Jessica Watson and her parents and support team are public figures and are not members of this Forum (as far as anyone knows.) As public figures, they are not subject to the same protections as individual members of Cruisers Forum.

That some members have found her world-record-effort wanting and have mocked it is not a rules violation on this Forum. That other members have come to her defense and sung her praises is also not a rules violation. But when, in the course of stating an opinion on either side of the issue, a member personally belittles, mocks or disparages another member for expressing his/her views, that crosses the line.

At that point we will step in and privately communicate with the offending member(s). That said, most of what has been posted to this thread is more than a bit touchy, but not in violation of the rules.

It would be greatly appreciated if the posting members not let their emotions overwhelm their rationality. We are, obviously, watching this and other threads on this topic closely.

Thank you for your cooperation.

TaoJones

[sneuman]

From Wotname:
I hadn't considered the point about apportioning blame; I believe it is self evident the rock wasn't at fault and it is (IMO) disrespectful to jump to other conclusions due to the deaths involved. I agree that let's wait for the facts to be presented.

True enough, but there may well have been extenuating circumstances. I am not aware of any in Jessica's case. Yes, mistakes will happen, but hers was a doozy and it fell into the middle of a legitimate debate about whether she was old enough or skilled enough to make the trip.

But given the sponsorship and the accompanying media hype, whether or not she would push on was never really in question, the maritime authorities or experienced voices be damned.

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by surfingminniwinni

But your quite happy to judge Jessica Watson and her parents, whom I'm sure you have never met, bashing them on the internet, did you tell your kids and the other sharp kids how cool that is.
:

surfingminniweenie, I have been following this thread, and the press and reports from Aus. As far as Jessica's parents go, it very much seems that her father manufactured his own version of the truth as it pertains to his daughters collision. In interviews after the collision, he offered outright lies to cover the fact that his daughter was asleep. I find this as creepy as some of your recent posts. Have you been reading different info over there? Is there a subversive plot that is feeding us bad info on this side of the world? How do you account for the differences between the report and her parents interviews?

Know what scares me? I think about all the people feverishly working on her crushed and dismasted boat while she stands around. I think about them rushing to "Get her back out there", so she can round the capes (often during questionable weather), just to be the youngest this, or the gender that. Her parents may never get it, but if shes lost, those workers are gonna feel like sh*t...

[surfingminniwinni]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

I find this as creepy as some of your recent posts. Have you been reading different info over there? Is there a subversive plot that is feeding us bad info on this side of the world?

Quiet simple, if you think everything thats dished up in the Murdoch Press is true, you have a problem right away. We have a saying in this country, I read it on News.com.au so it must be true. They thrive on negativity, kinda like this thread. Oh btw, I did find the weenie thing funny.

But I guess we can laugh at ourselves as well over here.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by sneuman

From Wotname:
I hadn't considered the point about apportioning blame; I believe it is self evident the rock wasn't at fault and it is (IMO) disrespectful to jump to other conclusions due to the deaths involved. I agree that let's wait for the facts to be presented.

True enough, but there may well have been extenuating circumstances. I am not aware of any in Jessica's case.

Name Two.

[osirissail]

from post 656 "They thrive on negativity, kinda like this thread." Sufinwinimini - that is why we have the "Yachting SUCCEED" thread. It is for those who want to sing Jessica's praises. Maybe you should move over there. This is the middle of the road, to the "she's not going to make it because . . . " thread. We discuss here why she might not make it, at best or kill herself, at worst. And what repercussions that has on the larger sailing community. Public figures by definition are fair game for legitimate and quasi-legitimate criticism.
- - All over the world the "press" is known to be "less than accurate", rather selective in what they do publish and sometimes "slanted" in the the favor of the views of the guy paying the salaries of the news staff. "Good news is no news." But still the news is the only source of information available to all of us. I think you were legitimately asked if you had different "outside the mainstream news" sources that could add so meat to the this discussion. We would certainly be more than interested in sources "closer to the scene - of the crime".

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by sneuman

From Wotname:
I hadn't considered the point about apportioning blame; I believe it is self evident the rock wasn't at fault and it is (IMO) disrespectful to jump to other conclusions due to the deaths involved. I agree that let's wait for the facts to be presented.

True enough, but there may well have been extenuating circumstances. I am not aware of any in Jessica's case. Yes, mistakes will happen, but hers was a doozy and it fell into the middle of a legitimate debate about whether she was old enough or skilled enough to make the trip.

But given the sponsorship and the accompanying media hype, whether or not she would push on was never really in question, the maritime authorities or experienced voices be damned.

I have to agree and believe these are suitable aspects to discuss, my only beef is with those who say she should be prevented from perhaps a foolish and certainly risky voyage

[s/v Beth]

Now we get into a much more philosophical debate Wotname, and that is should a person be prevented from hurting themselves, and when does a society loose the liability of controlling a young individual's actions. Australia seems to believe it is 16, mothers that are on this forum seem to think that age is much older.
I am a watcher, and conclude that my getting upset will not change the events unfolding over there...
I wish her luck, and at the same time wish she wouldn't go...