AM397

I'm not your mate, thank goodness. I already mentioned one was "naturally" derived. It's like the difference between morphine and synthetic morphine. However, that doesn't change the point of my post, that the pilot was tested positive for the lowest of the lowest of drugs. Except, I guess one could argue that sniffing spray paint was even lower.

No, not "cocaine". Crack cocaine. And since you don't know, that is methamphetamine, except of course, crack cocaine is "natural" where methamphetamine is 100 percent chemical.

Blah, blah. You do realise that crack cocaine is not some "light" drug, right? It's the lowest of the lowest of drugs and one of the most addictive of them all. And you do realize that many over-the-counter products are used for the sole purpose of suicide (i.e. painkillers etc.) and as it easily available, of course people elect that route.

Ooh, thanks :)

Ah, but enough to accuse the "mice" of outrageous things to defend your position. Right, you're the better person ...

Well, that's not what he has shown here. On the contrary, his misplaced loyalty to a pilot who fell asleep (at the very least) while transporting patients and crew as well as testing positive for meth shows that his loyalty is with a pilot, regardless of the facts. He has, as has you, shown that time and time again in this thread. Who cares? How is that pertinent to this discussion? It doesn't matter how good a person is - that doesn't make him exempt from being wrong. However, I'd say that his intellectual dishonesty where he accuses people not agreeing with him of being racists and homophobes doesn't land him on my list of "decent people". But what do I care, I'm not having coffee with him, and it has no bearing on this discussion. Erm, yeah. And so what? Other people can't be straightforward? You think being straightforward is somehow foreign to me? I know. I use the internet not only for pleasure, but for work, on a daily basis. Oh, alright. I thought it was you guys who was arguing that the pilot in question was innocent until proven guilty (i.e. in a court of law), and did your utmost to disregard the facts, since he wasn't proven guilty.

I'm sorry, but coming up with apologetics to make it seem like that it's a big conspiracy against a pilot and accusing people of being racist and homophobes in the process shows exactly how entrenched and blind you are, simply because the person in question is a pilot. You are the very last person here to cry about insults, with your outrageous accusations and passive-aggressive behaviour. As for your professionalism: Your behaviour truly shows just where your loyalties lie: It's certainly not in the realm of reality or in the interest of safety. There seems to no low which you won't stoop to, in order to make it seem as if the pilot is a victim.

I began arguing my case, as did you guys and it devolved into this because we disagree. I think you're ignoring the facts, and you think that I'm reading things into the facts. And, frankly, you're hardly in a position to claim innocence in the insult-department, although you're not as bad as the Mozartmerv character. Edit: Who cares if my posts are "ordinary"? I'm not writing a thesis or a hard-hitting news piece, nor making a documentary. Talk about irrelevant insults.

I have no intention of charming you, so I consider that a job well done, then.

Boohoo. That would all be fine and well if he hadn't tested positive for drugs. Which he did. So, no I'm not listening to willful ignorance and entrenched naivity, nor apologetics where facts are ignored to make your point.

What are you on about? Objectively he was fired after testing positive for drugs, after the ATC lost contact with the plane, after they altered the altitude, and after a fortnight where the RFDS conducted their own investigation. Sorry, but making a conclusion on those facts are not being biased as you imply with your "objective" statement. If you think "objectivity" is about catering to your personal beliefs and/or naivity, you have a lot to learn about journalism and objectivity. It reminds me of those Middle East countries where democracy has recently been introduced, and when the people who voted for the losing parties were asked what they thought about the election, quite a lot of them went "Pshh! Democracy doesn't work. The people I voted for didn't get elected!". I don't care how much involved in "the industry" you are. If the bloke is on so much medication that he falls asleep on the job, then he should have never got into the plane. Seriously, some things are just stupid, but when they involve the lives of others, they become dangerous. I couldn't care less if he was a druggie, if he only pushed papers. I seriously couldn't. But he didn't. He flew other people around for a living and as such was directly responsible for their lives. What the hell would have happened if they weren't on autopilot?

Way to go, FH. I wasn't saying that only one point of view was acceptable. I was arguing against naivity, and the notion of innocence you guys put forth, while simultaneously arguing against the monochrome worldview that journos are either good or bad, not to mention the attitude that since we can't know it all, then nothing can be known. Whether or not you have saved the reputation of anyone has no bearing whatsoever on you being right or wrong. I think that with the additional facts Oracle1 laid on the table, the discussion is over. P.S. At no time did I think you were condoning drug use, and I sure as hell hope I didn't imply that anywhere? In any case, don't worry.

No, but I can tell you that what Nino DiMarco is quoted as saying is what he actually said. I can tell you too, that the facts are in plain view, and that it took two weeks from the incident to when the RFDS went public with it. Yes, you probably can. But that doesn't mean all sources are equal in any way, sense, or form. Read the article and other articles on this, and with just a little knowledge of writing, you can tell this is really sober reporting of the facts. They even threw in an "alleged" since he hasn't been to court (yet). Wow. The individual thing may not tell a clear story, but add them up and put them together, they most emphatically do. But hey, let's all be that naive. It must be great. With that sort of attitude, everything is just coincidence and journalistic spin.

Yeah, I thought so :)

Where have I misquoted you? Where have I twisted your words? And what's with "take an angle"? Is having an opinion now "taking an angle"? I guess outright intellectual dishonesty is not something you aim to avoid. Instead you choose to wallow in it. FH, as for he who is without sin etc. I am without sin. I don't do drugs, nor does people's lives depend on me being clearheaded. Hell, I don't even drive if I'm just slightly hungover. As for the paranoid hillbilly talk from the both of you about journos not being credible, and your utter lack of capacity to differentiate between various sources, papers, and articles, not to mention the different type of article, I'm almost at a loss for words. It's amazing, that unless you're served a fortune cookie answer to whether something is trustworthy, they must either all be bad or all good. Where do you stay up to date about the world we live in? Once again, go do some research. Why would RFDS Queensland Executive Nina DeMarco (spl?) go out an publically say that they offer support for the two patients and the nurse, that the nurse was now on leave, and why would the ATC say that they lost contact after the plane left the designated altitude, if it didn't go awry up there? Add to that that the nurse could explain that the pilot was asleep on that very same trip, explaining why they altered altitude and why there was no radio contact. It may be "standard" to have people "stand down", but he was fired, and the response from RFDS has been that he was fired because they have a no-tolerance drug politics. Now, besides this being put forward to the various aviation authorities, this has also been submitted to the police for investigation. Seriously, I think I'm done with you two. It seems, that anything short of court verdict of "guilty", he must be innocent. That that would mean that drug tests showed false positives, that the ATC lied, that the nurse lied, possibly the patients as well, and the RFDS has overreacted, apparently is irrelevant.