Robert Bonomi wrote:

And he was -not- "self sufficient", for "support services".

Neither is the NSF. Do you not remember the woman diagnosed with breast cancer
last year? The NSF was unable to help her. The US Air Force had to bail her ass
out, first by dropping special meds to her, and later by flying a special air
evac mission. So since the NSF isn't "self sufficient", your argument doesn't
hold up.

The NSF may well believe that denying essential assistance (like use of a phone)
in Jon's case on the belief that it will discourage irrational thrill seekers.
The NSF is wrong. Thrill seekers are irrational, therefore the NSF's passive
dissuasion will not work. All that they have done is stir up a row among the
Aussies and us, and given themselves a blackeye.

Russell Kent