Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
I'm curious to see what branch of the medical profession doesn't mind protestors blocking emergency crews when someone is at risk.

Sorry mate, but I really have to take his side.... no where in ANY of his posts in this thread suggested that he's cool with the protesters being stupid.



What he HAS said, in this thread, is that THIS situation turned out fine, because contingency plans that were emplaced worked as they were designed to. Further that YOUR "What If' scenarios were bordering on insane, because they had nothing to do with what actually happened, and yet you are trying to paint him out to be some crazy villain-esque bad guy about the whole thing.

Actually, he did take the protestor's side, and how is putting forward the possibility that this protest could have prevented someone from getting help they needed in a timely fashion, causing them to die, bordering on insane?

Relapse wrote:
and how is putting forward the possibility that this protest could have prevented someone from getting help they needed in a timely fashion, causing them to die, bordering on insane?

Because no one did.

Most of us have acknowledged that there was a potential that nothing "worse" happened in the OP than what did, and most of us have acknowledged that this whole thread would look different IF something had happened. Beyond that though, most of us have dropped the issue.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you've been writing but from where I'm sitting, you seem to have taken a very soap boxy position and will not let non-issues lie.

No opinion on the article but I miss the board walk and that awesome wooden roller coaster the big dipper.

I agree with the protestors on their cause and that they should not be punished for What If scenarios. Not how they went about doing the protest.

Relapse, are you reading my posts at all?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I agree with the protestors on their cause and that they should not be punished for What If scenarios. Not how they went about doing the protest.

Relapse, are you reading my posts at all?

So, do you think they should be punished for the chaining/concreting themselves to a road as such, or do you think the school should also take action in it's punishment (ie, expulsion)

I don't think the college should be involved in the punishment.

They did, however cause a lot of issues for people and I think there should be consequences. Community service or something, throwing the book at poor students protesting tuition hikes helps nobody.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think the college should be involved in the punishment.

They did, however cause a lot of issues for people and I think there should be consequences. Community service or something, throwing the book at poor students protesting tuition hikes helps nobody.

May I ask why, if you do something and you explicitly say you are part of a company or organization, you are representing that entity.

Just because you go to school or work somewhere does not mean you represent them at all times. UCSC should just say that they do not condone this form of reckless protest and distance themselves. Maybe have some of the faculty speak to them about the dangers of blocking a bridge to make sure these types of issues do not arise in the future.

Let the courts handle the punishments. That's why they are there.