TJ wrote:
(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.

Ah ha! So you are not a detached observer in the matter after all.

Tsk, tsk, and that appears to be the best you and your ilk can do.
The challenge was to provide information that refuted the comments I made -
based on published information that I provided. I was accused of being "
another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking about. "

Oh now that really convinces me. NOT! Get real. Same mindset and same
bias = same spin. The truth is likely somewhere between both sides'
accounts.

The truth remains, for all the huffing and puffing of Mr Springer and yourself,
that Mr Johanson was ill-prepared, duplicious, and ended up at McMurdo
bad-mouthing the people there and publicly begging for fuel.

He's admitted that he didn't file the correct flight plan because the
authorities wouldn't have permited the flight. He had insufficent fuel with no
contingency plan and supplies, and didn't abort the flight when he could, but
continued on to the South Pole, hoping to try and scavenge somebody else's
fuel.

The damsel that came galloping to the resue of Mr Johanson is the person who
should be given all the credit and admiration - she is truly an "adventurer"
not a duplicious and deceptive opportunist. She had worked in partnership with
the authorities for two years, building supplies, taking note of their
suggestions, discussing her plans and getting approval etc. etc.

Mr Stringer pointed to a general WWW site as evidence of his position in a
parallel argument about Mr Johanson's refusal to pay for the fuel. That site
supported at least three of my points, but rather than admit any, he, and now
you, appear keen to keep attacking my credibility - I've never claimed to be a
participant in this, and merely provided publically available information as
justification for my perception.

All I've asked is for those that dispute any the information I provided ( along
with publicly available sources ) to provide equally-acceptable alternatives,
and I don't really care about what you think of me or my credibility. Just
provide the requested alternative information of suitable quality.

So far, all I've seen is some mumbo jumbo about " I base my reasons on talking
to a person that talked to Jon and his crew personally ". As far as I'm
concerned, you could also talk in tongues, wear funny hats, and have secret
handshakes, but all I asked for is credible data that shows the information I
have provided is wrong.

I'm actually surprised that, given the self-inflicted predicament that the
duplicious Mr Johanson got himself into, that rational people believe that
anything he says is credible. A damsel had to come charging to the rescue of
this ill-prepared and duplicious "adventurer". Some people here obviously
think he's a good role model, and that inadequate planning and filing deceptive
flight plans are acceptable behaviour. I just hope you don't also pilot
commercial aircraft.

Followups set to nz.general only.

Bruce Hamilton