"It's about compassion. Thankfully I think there are more people who understand that than there are Susans and Benjamins in the world."

It is disappointing that some continue to confuse fiduciary concerns I and others have with lacking compassion for the welfare of those who make poor choices in life. It should be apparent that both Susan and I are compassionate, charitable people, who are willing to help those in need even to the debtriment of our own welfare. Sometimes the only way to help someone is through criticism and a certain amount of derision, especially when diplomacy and political correctness seems to have no effect on their foresight. Likewise, it is never prudent to continue to provide any form of assistance to those who demonstrate ambivalence and disregard for such effort, no matter the provisional cost being expended on their behalf.

Many of us on this forum, Susan and myself included, have volunteered to help others, often at great risk and expense to ourselves and those who support our effort. In voicing our concerns for those who's resources are taxed, who's fees are raised, who's access is restricted, we cite a common frustration. Those few who abuse a privilege by not assuming responsibility for their actions and the consequences that entail do so at the expense of the majority of the rest of us. One definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior/action and expect different results. If people are making the same sort of mistakes repeatedly and ignore the predictable outcome, then someone ought to point out to them and the rest contemplating taking the same action the error in their reasoning, using whatever means necessary to make a suitable impression.

Compassion does not equal acceptance. I treat my daughters compassionately, even when I am critical of their actions. Does that make me a bad father? The results would indicate otherwise. Sometimes I criticize them harshly, like when the risk is exceptionally grave, or the pattern is becoming repetitive, but almost always with a positive result. Yes, it hurts their feelings, and I would prefer it didn't, but in my opinion it is far better than the alternative. So too the case then for calling someone out for making an avoidable mistake on the side of the mountain that costs lives and risks others, especially since I and many like me are responsible for getting them off the side of that mountain; everyone who pays taxes is being held responsible it, not just those making the rescue attempt.

There was a time in my life when I was responsible for no one and nothing more than myself. Now I have a job, a family, and social commitments that fairly preclude me from doing a lot of activities I would otherwise like, simply because the risk of my loss and my inability to cover said loss sufficiently is no longer acceptable. This is not to say I don't take any risks with my welfare, such as going to Baghdad or out to Elk camp, but I do my level best to mitigate those risks as much as possible. Life is all about risk, but it is also about accountability. No one should have one without the other, and that's been my whole point in this and other similar threads.

I've got nothing more to say about the subject anymore after this. It doesn't seem to matter how much explanation is given, some folks are just never going to accept the criticism, and being singled out and labeled for an opinion has been counterproductive to the discussion.