Conference moira::naturism

    I hope you forgot to include the ":-)"'s in your note, Jay.
    
    I hope you're not encouraging people to go jumping into places 
    where it may not be safe.  We had a great time dealing with the 
    lake's police last time.  I'd hate to see them close off the area
    because one person was not careful and got seriously injured.  I'm
    glad that one of our fellow noters cared enough to watch over the 
    jumpers and be ready to dive in to rescue someone, just in case.
    
    There's a time for risk-taking.  When Molly brought out her BIB last
    time, I wanted to go out to the raft but I couldn't swim out there.
    Molly and someone else swam me out to the raft; it was not exactly
    safe, but I was careful.  I could have swam back alone, if I really
    tried, but I didn't think that being adventurous was a good enough
    reason to practice my meager swimming skills by swimming 100 feet
    to shore and risk drowning.
    
    B.
    

    Re .37
    
    I agree with John, the Ledges is NOT the place for small children.
    But once they can swim well, and if they are likey to obey
    instructions, then the chance of an accident is very small.
    
    Any water and small children is a risky combination, I pulled a
    small boy out of the Hotel swimming pool last week, after he fell
    in while his father was not watching.
    
Peter.    

    re:.39
    
    I agree, Ben.  I've seen places get closed down because of accidents
    that have happened.  I've never been to the Ledges, but I hope to
    go someday and I don't think that would happen if suddenly people
    were breaking their necks diving off of rocks.
    
    Also, (and not to get too heavy but) drinking and d(r)iving isn't
    really a very safe combo either.  Two years ago, a good friend of
    mine had a few too many and dove into a 14 ft. pool and didn't hit
    quite right.  Today, he's paralyzed from the middle of his chest
    down - with only one nerve running through each arm that works.
    Needless to say, his entire life has changed dramatically just because
    of what took place in a few split seconds.  You must be careful
    when diving *anywhere* or *anytime*.
    
    - Kathryn
    

Jay,  I had certainly hoped your lack of :-) was an oversight.  

I lose respect for people who don't follow the minimum safety `rules', because 
they not only endanger themselves but also others they are with.  Since dragging
a person out of water is a feat in itself (if you've ever taken a `safety in
water' course, you know what I mean), then picture trying to get a body out of 
water who is not capable of providing assistance!  I'd hate to think someone 
foolish enough to disregard safety would be out there and anyone around 
recognize this disregard and have no one come to this person's aid if the need 
had risen.

Besides, probably alot of people's nice nude day would be ruined if an incident
like this happened.  :-(...  What a bummer....

Judy

    re .43:
    
    Please give us a break. I HAVE dragged people out of the water. It's
    always a risk. What makes the ledges additionally dangerous is the
    rocks. A tragedy would be bad enough, but can be made worse if it
    turned out to be just the excuse someone needs to close the place down.
    
    Again, sorry if our intentions are only human. I'm not usually in the
    business of protecting someone else from themself ( not any more, that
    is ), but in a world full of smart ass lawyers, let that person know
    they're playing with more than their own life.
    
    							OK?
    
    							John.

    RE: .43
    
    Oh geez...
    
    Alot of first-timers at the Ledges are not aware that the water level
    goes down as the season progresses.  This makes it especially dangerous 
    for people who don't realize that "deep" in June is probably not
    anywhere as "deep" in August.
    
    As alot of naturists are aware of (especially those who are members of
    the Naturists Society), there are alot of people who are waiting
    for the slightest excuse to close down a nuding place.  They're
    just looking for a legal out.  Look at Moonstone.  They put the fence
    down to the high-water mark, figuring that all the nudist will get
    washed away or something.  Today, the water there was up to and past
    the fence (on the larger side) until around 11:30 am (my cooler almost
    got washed away).
    
    But the previous paragraph is not important.   The important thing is that
    it's okay to have fun as long as you're careful.  I'd hate to see
    someone hurt or killed because they couldn't be bothered to spend a
    couple of extra minutes to check things out.  In the public eye,
    alot of things have been attributed to naturists.  I'd hate to have
    them add stupidity to that list.  Do you agree?
    
    Personally, I think that lounging out in the middle of the lake at
    the Ledges on the B.I.B. has got to be more fun, especially since
    I can't swim.  Wine cooler in hand, sun beating down on your tan,
    and on the biggest "water bed" in the world...it don't get no better!
    :-)
    
    B

>>    First of all, as a parent I can assure you that my wife and I have
>>    the safety of our children uppermost in our mind -- my personal
>>    commitement to safety, especially the safety of my family, is not
>>    the issue 
    
    	Please reread your note that started all this ruckus.  You were
    	giving people a hard time about being worried about a potential
    	safety hazard.  Alot of kids do jump at the Ledges.
    
        >>>If the argument herein
    >>>regarding safety is carried to it's logical conclusion, there will
    >>>be a lifeguard, a depth marker, a roped section, danger signs, yellow
    >>>safety lines on the rocks, and the maybe even rules prohibiting
    >>>swimming during the 'low' season.  
    
    That's not true...everyone here is encouraging people to be careful
    and to use common sense when jumping off at the Ledges.  If everyone
    were careful, there would be no need to "add a lifeguard, a depth
    marker, etc".
    
    If you look back at your note, you were putting down people who were 
    worried about being careful.  You were "encouraging" people not to be 
    careful and to jump without checking the depth of the water.  That's 
    not right and that's the issue here.
    
>    Screw all of this crap about the 'weight of the human corpse being
>    dredged from the water'.  If you all felt that strongly about the
>    Ledges, you wouldn't go, right?  Yeah, I know ... so long as we
>    all follow the safety 'rules' ...
>    
>    I submit that as Naturists, we abhore control and regulation,
>    especially from Lifeguards!
    
	Encouraging people to jump without looking is the quickest way
        to ensure control and regulation.  We all had a good time at the
        Ledges the last time we went there.  We don't want one careless
        person to ruin it for the rest.    
    
    	Your comment (above) about the "weight of the human corpse" sounded
    	very callous.  Having to pull a body out of the water has got
        to be a very traumatic event.  I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
        If we encouraged people to be careful, the chance of this happening
    	would diminish.
    
>>    Sooner or later, in every nice natural discovery, some clown comes
>>    along who says 'this might be dangerous', and then the the system
>>    takes over.
    
    	The chances of this happening increases if someone actually 
    	got hurt or killed, especially at the Ledges.  We'd like to
    	keep it down to just "this might be dangerous".
    
>>>There's a
>>>    natural tradeoff between safety and risk.  I think that the Ledges
>>>    begs for the latter.
    
    	It's not a tradeoff...it's a choice.  We encourage people to
    	be safe and minimize the risk.  This is possible at the Ledges.
    	Your note a few replies back implied that "risk and fun" go 
    	hand-in-hand.  I'm saying "safety and fun" go together.
    
    	B.

    Let me see if I can put this a little more eloquently. No one here is
    seriously suggesting that someone would act recklessly at the ledges
    with the intent of hurting themselves and suing the property owners,
    thereby closing down the site. What has been suggested is that sort of
    thing might happen as the result of carelessness, or not thinking about
    the hazards there.
    
    In any case, I think anger is an inappropriate response. No one's been
    hurt there that I know of because in general the people who go there
    are very careful. It's something that might easily be taken for
    granted. All I'm saying is that it's important to reinforce the safety
    message the parents are most likely giving the kids.
    
    No one here has suggested that it's dangerous therefore we need an
    authority structure. We've said it's dangerous therefore others should
    be aware of the ( probability times impact equals ) risk.
    
    Let's keep the ledges a fun place to visit.
    
    						John.

Maybe we should have split this off at an earlier time to a `Safety' topic.
We kinda ratholed here folks.  Sorry about that.  And to think I contributed!
Let's get back to the topic at hand about the Ledges.  Sounds like a place I'd 
like to visit sometime when I'm in the `east'.

Judy

I wouldn't have put it the same way that Jay did, but I feel a certain 
frustration which I believe is the same as what he was expressing.

As a society, we have become much more sensitive to avoidable risks.  
(Perhaps because of the reduction in previously unavoidable risks,
especially the threat of illness?)  We vaccinate our children and put 
them in car seats; we think about poisonous houseplants; we don't dive
off rocks without knowing what's in the water.

But there is an impulse to take this to extremes, to say that the most
important thing in life is to eliminate all the risks of living.  (Without
intending to put down a fine and useful magazine, I am tempted to call it
the Consumer's Reports syndrome.)  When this combines with institutional 
paranoia and the fear of liability, the consequence threatens to be the 
complete sterilization of life.  Don't jump off of *any* rocks!  Swim only 
at official beaches with a lifeguard in attendance!  Stay on the trail!  
Don't cross the railing!

So I'm far from unsympathetic to the response that I am capable of making 
my own decisions about my life, evaluating my risks, and choosing to take 
them in pursuit of some higher value in living than absolute safety.

Aren't we all?

>>    And I surely don't mean that we shouldn't practice caution and
>>    reason and common sense in our activities.  I do.  But I just don't
>>    want to be told to.
    
Jay,  Thanks for letting us know this.  I was kinda worried about you! ;-)
I don't like any of my friends to take unnecessary risks, especially when
it deals with their health.  And me too, I don't like to be told.  I'd
like to think other people knew I had brains and was using them.  I, too,
apologize if I appear to have come off `that' way to you.  ����

Alot of garbage on my phone line this morning.  Hope this message isn't
totally trashed!

Judy

    re: .17
    
        I lived in the Panama Canal Zone from 1959 to 1962 near Cocoli
    first, then Farfan (near Ft. Kobbe.)  Being a kid, it was great.
    The jungles provided me with lots of adventures, climbing mango
    trees and swinging on vines and jumping into creeks.  There were
    some who went skinny-dipping but I was not among them (nor did
    *I* ever see them.)  Those were the pre-marijuana days and much
    of my time consisted of swimming and playing with rockets or
    airplanes or going to movies (which were about $.35 or free.)
    I met Bob Hope and got Andy Williams autograph.  I once rode
    a ship through the canal and got a picture of myself on the front
    of the Sunday paper's family section while on the ship--wouldn't
    you know I was looking into a porthole, as I was going down steps,
    at the time.  ;-)  My views of Panama are probably quite different 
    from yours, Jay. 
    
    Frederick
    

This discussion about safety makes me recall several incidents or situations;

Tourists in Europe's Alps can take chair lifts up to the top of mountains, 
presumably to enjoy the view.  At the top station you may encounter notices 
saying "beyond this notice is a high level alpine route.  Do not pass this 
notice unless you are properly equiped with crampons, ice axe, and ropes."  
Apparently tourists have fallen off the top because they were unable to assess 
the dangers for themselves.

I remember walking along Welsh mountain tracks in my boots and climbing 
clothing accompanied by sarcastic comments about the "Everest expediton" from 
people in "normal" town casual clothing including women in summer dresses and 
high healed shoes.  I remember seeing the same people being led down the 
mountain through the mist a few hours later, shivering with cold and fear, by 
properly equiped climbers like myself.  The sunny summer's day had turned sour 
and could have cost a life or two.

Some people we know from an inland town lost a daughter, drowned off an 
apparently safe bathing beach, on a day trip to the coast.  They didn't know 
how to evaluate the dangers of rips and undertows and falling tides, things 
which are common knowledge amongst those of us who grew up by the sea.

All of these incidents are caused by people being in a strange situation, 
where they do not have the skills to evaluate the risks of danger for 
themselves.  Warning signs, lifeguards, and all the other paraphernalia only 
go part of the way to compensate for people's ignorance, and may lead to an 
artificial and false aura of safety;  "it's OK to swim because there's no
danger sign."  The only way we can get away from this feather bedding, 
cotton-wool padding, sterylising, suffocating, (call it what you want..?) type 
of society is by everyone learning how to recognise when they are in a strange 
situation for which their own experience does not equip them to make safe 
judgements.  We must also learn how to recognise which of the many siren 
voices of advise to listen to.

It's not easy, but it's part and parcel of a complex of processes which 
include;

a)	democracy; people making active decisions based on political and
social knowledge and understanding.
b)	naturism; people making decisions about when it is appropriate to wear 
clothing and when it is unnecessary.
c)	conservation; people taking responsibility for the effect of their own 
behaviour on the environment.
d)	morality; people taking responsibility for the effect of their own 
actions on those who will be affected by them.

    re: .19
    
         I like what and how that was said.
    
    Frederick
    

    along the lines of .19
    Or the situation where 4 skiiers decide they can assess personal risk
    safely, choose to ignore a safety sign indicating a known avalanche
    zone to enjoy some OB skiing(OB=out of boundry). These 4 release an
    avalanche killing 2 people below and walk away with nothing more than
    a hand slap.
    
    BTW-this refers to an accident in Breckenridge Co. circa 1986.
    
    Don't ask me where to draw the line but it would seem something's in
    the wrong place.
    

    RE: .22
    
    You're confusing "risky" with "different".
    
    To avoid "routine" and "mundane" situations, you do not have to
    seek "risky" situations.  All you need to do is to find "different"
    situations to keep from being bored.
    
    There is no need to "risk it all" just to keep from getting bored.
    A "hero" takes risks for good reasons; a fool takes risks for no
    reason.
    
    B.

re the last two, I'm inclined to agree with Jay on this one.  It surely 
isn't as simple a thing as "confusing" risk with variety.  Note that Jay
didn't claim that fulfillment requires "risking it all" or putting one's
life on the line, but rather that life may become bland in the total
absence of risk.

I don't know if I buy this 100%, but it's certainly plausible that (for 
some, anyways) positive self-esteem requires a sort of personal competence
which is demonstrated by the ability to succeed in situations where failure
not only is possible, but would have adverse consequences -- that is, risk.

Note that this suggesting risk not as "spice" which makes life more
interesting, but as the substrate for the sort of personal exercise
which builds competence and self-confidence.

	-Neil

    "Risk" is the freedom to fail.  "Potential" or "opportunity" is the
    freedom to succeed.  It doesn't make very much sense to have one without
    the other.  Our society, as was pointed out earlier, tries to be a
    no-risk society, but if it were, it would become a no-opportunity
    society.
    
    A swim in the public pool with a lifeguard every 10 feet and a
    mile-long list of rules isn't as fulfilling as a dive off the rocks
    into a lake in the wilderness.  There's very little room for adventure
    or discovery or individuality in the public pool.  It doesn't really
    matter what you DO there; the lifeguards will stop you before you "get
    in over your head"; you just lie back and "have fun", in a rather
    passive sense.
    
    I prefer to be more involved in my fun.  I like to actively evaluate my
    surroundings and make decisions which have some meaningful outcome.  If
    my mistakes can't have any negative consequences (e.g. injury), then
    there's no motivation for me to think.  I have nothing against
    relaxation, but if I wanted to relax, I'd have stayed home in bed.
    
    If there's no challenge in a particular activity, then there's no
    excitement in it either, at least for me, and there's no sense of
    accomplishment once I've completed it.  And if there's no risk, then
    there's no challenge.
    
    I don't mean to advocate being reckless or irresponsible.  What I'm
    suggesting is that it's better to think for oneself than to avoid all
    situations where someone has decreed the existence of danger.
    
              Mark  "MyTH"