Gilder in a new light

[Maxgoof]

Well, this complicates things.

First, those who were afraid that Lady Rose and Gilder were married can breathe a sigh of relief. There also seems to be a number of families that name their daughters after flowers.

Second, Gilder doesn't appear to be hiding a thing. His objection then is his objection now, and he is thinking of the whole, not his own personal gain. That cannot be faulted.

His mannerisms and methods may not be the best, but still....

My opinion of Gilder has risen.

[Tom Mazanec]

Well, he has a point. My opinion has risen too. Still, I don't know if the "need for questors" is gone. In the kidnap case, the guardsmen could not find the kid. In the rat king case, they had no idea what was going on. In the stolen sword case, even Mulharney admitted Quentyn had a point about not going to the guard.

[Shyal_malkes]

I think the only thing this really complicates is the public opinion of guilder. I figured when Ralph gave him the attention in the previous page that he was either gonna throw a monkey wrench into our assessment of the guy or he was gonna reveal part of the next story arc. maybe he's just done both!

the problem I have with guilder is that he seems to be assuming that he is the only one that is taking it seriously. I mean just because two people take something seriously it does not guarantee that they'll come to the same conclusion concerning that thing.

I think Rillcreek took questors seriously and he and guilder were at opposite opinions when Quentyn first wanted to be a questor.

and people will rationalize things all the time. guilder may yet NOT be taking it seriously and yet thinks that he is.

I think guilder does want to take the topic seriously and is doing his best to do so. I also think that the evidence has shown he is wrong about questors and that they do in fact need one.

[Tom Mazanec]

Questors are mostly detectives in their functioning. We still need detectives today, even on the police force. Medieval guards were not well versed in the techniques of detection, as they tended to just pull fingernails till someone confessed (althought the Seven Villages are likely more civilized than this). As I mentioned, three times in a row Quentyn encountered a situation where the guard was not suitable to the task. Maybe Gilder should think a little bit on THIS angle.

[Jaydub]

Jaydub Wrote:

Is Lady Rose Married to Gilder?

I just went back and looked and she is sitting next to him in the earlier meeting of the Elders when Quentyn first became a Questor. She was also there in the pub when they were discussing what test they could use for testing the Questor applicants.

Boy I am glad I got that one wrong.

Let's see that makes be about 0 for 4 on my brilliant dedutctions.

But have no fear. I would never let something like that stop me.

[Madmoonie]

Actually, I kind of agree with Gilder. Well, at least understand. Lady Rose didn't take him seriously, at not in my humble opinion . She thought of him more a nice little throwback to romantic times. I respect Gilder's position. He does not fear or loathe Quentyn himself, and he knows that Quentyn will try. What he does he fear is the "damage" (like the situation with the Gragum and the whole business in the city) that Quentyn can do, and the fact people like Quentyn change, and in Gilder's mind, not always for the better. I think Rillcreek thought of the power to do good, so that is why he supported Quentyn when he did. I don't necessarily agree with Gilder, but I understand what he is concerned about.

[Madmoonie]

I think he is even worried about Quentyn. Like parents who don't want their children doing a certain activity because of the damage they could inccur.

....and a merry IGLOO!!!

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!]

Good evening.


Hmmm...are there any situations in OUR world where we need a swashbuckling type hero/heroine?

Quentyn's obviously not a 1-Rac Conan commando team, nor he would be in the Special Forces, Navy Seals...

I once had a dream where Zorro was in his 50's and he was complaining that now that California was part of the US, his services weren't needed anymore, nor of any Zorro-type character, either.

If questors aren't compatible with "modern" Rac Conan society, would it be feasible to introduce a law that would strip them of their authority to be nothing more than *true* showpieces?


Or...are we being set up for a situation where nobody BUT a questor can help?



Hey, did you hear about Buckingham Palace hiring a court jester after I-don't-know-how-many years? For real! The guy's a professional comedian and now he's in the government payroll for just telling jokes and juggling bowling pins in front of the queen, go figure.

A jester doesn't compare to a questor, naturally, and considering that if the queen wants to laugh all she has to do is look at Mr. Bean shows, so it's more than obvious that it's all for being a "showpiece", much like the queen herself. Considering, however, that she still grants knighthood, I now ask:

Has the office of questor been more or less relegated to the same level that the office of a knight is in modern day England?

If not, then is that what Gilder wants?


Zacatepongolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Lee M]

Holy crap. Five consecutive daily strips? At this rate Ralph's going to shame me into doing some real work for a living.

[Mike Fang]

Guilder's heart seems to be in the right place; his concern is that Quentyn's actions will cause more harm than good and that his actions will one day cause a serious problem for Freeman Downs. This is a concern to be held with anybody who belongs to a community, but Quentyn's occupation puts him at a higher risk than others.

However, Guilder's methods are far from evenhanded. Rather than take the matter up personally with Quentyn and express his concern about the reflection of his actions on the town directly to him, he's taken to a public smear campaign, attempting to discredit and shame Quentyn in an attempt to get him to resign his position. He also seems to be a definite liberal in his support of depending on the system (in particular the guardsmen) to handle all their criminal problems and his denouncement of taking personal responsibility to combat crime. Quentyn's job is comparable to a private investigator, in a way; he looks into breaches of the law at the request of private clients. I think that the fact that some crimes go unsolved or result in the arrest of innocent people by mistake shows that there may still be a need for people who make it their living to investigate such incidents that aren't affected by the same reputation and mentality that the police (or in this case guardsmen) are affected by.

In short, I think this shows that Guilder has legitimate concerns regarding the reinstatement of a town Questor. However, his tactics are childish and vindictive. He behaves like the class bully that calls attention to the odd kid out in the class, usually in a very loud voice. And he behaves like he holds it personally against Quentyn for choosing to persue this career. He would be better off trying to encourage Quentyn to keep the town's interest in mind, so long as they wouldn't oppose the interests of justice, rather than treat Quentyn like he's a millstone around the neck of Freeman Downs.

[Bengaley]

*SNIP* He also seems to be a definite liberal in his support of depending on the system (in particular the guardsmen) to handle all their criminal problems and his denouncement of taking personal responsibility to combat crime.
*snip*

Excuse me? How does that...?

I'm not quite the average liberal, but aren't we supposed to depend on the system? Isn't depending on the system what makes the system work in the first place?

Personal responsibility to combat crime? Mmm, so I should put on a mask and a cape and try to fight crime that way, as a vigilante? Or perhaps get a Bounty-Hunter's liscence and go that route.

We havn't seen anything that shows that Guilder doesn't support the Guard and the rest of the system in various ways he can. The very reasons he sets out for opposing Quent as a Questor shows to me he has a very healthy respect for the system and acts to support it in the ways he can.

I mean, do you expect one of the older members of the village to do something personal to stop crime? What's he going to do, swing that silly stun staff around?

[Mike Fang]

No, but I'd expect that he wouldn't try to hamper somebody who was willing to do something personally to try and uphold and enforce the law.

And no, you're not supposed to depend on the system entirely. The police are very important to preventing crime, but if there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others, there's no reason you shouldn't do it. Things such as be a responsible owner of a personal firearm, start a neighborhood watch in an area that has a crime problem, or look into potential problems that are brought to your attention (like if your kid says to you that there's a boy in his class who comes into school ever day with a black eye or some other kind of injury, or if a coworker is worried and says they've seen someone hanging around the parking lot for unusually long periods of time).

That's not being a vigilante. That's being a responsible citizen.

And you can stow the 'tude with your comments about capes and masks. Trying to de-legitimize my point by taking it to an unrealistic extreme is a really childish way of arguing against it.

[BlasTech]

No, but I'd expect that he wouldn't try to hamper somebody who was willing to do something personally to try and uphold and enforce the law.

And no, you're not supposed to depend on the system entirely. The police are very important to preventing crime, but if there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others, there's no reason you shouldn't do it. Things such as be a responsible owner of a personal firearm, start a neighborhood watch in an area that has a crime problem, or look into potential problems that are brought to your attention (like if your kid says to you that there's a boy in his class who comes into school ever day with a black eye or some other kind of injury, or if a coworker is worried and says they've seen someone hanging around the parking lot for unusually long periods of time).

That's not being a vigilante. That's being a responsible citizen.

And you can stow the 'tude with your comments about capes and masks. Trying to de-legitimize my point by taking it to an unrealistic extreme is a really childish way of arguing against it.

I should point out that it is also part of a responsible citizen's job to acknowledge their own limits and to accept responsibility for what they can and cant do. By and large this involves handing difficult situations over to those who are best trained to handle them.

Your example about the neighbourhood watch, the vigilant schoolchild and the concerned coworker are all well and good. However, when the question comes to "what next", morality can become a bit more blurred.

Say for example, your neighbourhood watch stumbles over suspicious activity, a crime syndicate or a smugglers ring. Do you take it solely upon yourself to break them up and bring them to justice?

This is not the same for the abused child as a personal touch might be needed to find out first why he seems to be getting injured. However, you should also know that at the same time, you are (most likely) not a trained psychiatrist or social worker and might therefore not be as well equipped to handle the situation.

The same goes for the co-worker. It could be just a simple explanation, but then again a deranged, possibly psychotic stalker is not something that is best handled by an average citizen.

Its things like this that gets Guilder worried (american political interpretations aside) because while questors are detectives, they are also, by and large, lone wolves in solving their problems. They have special powers and special leeway that allows them to operate outside normal channels. Quentyn now has those powers ... except he's just a kid and has had none of those special kinds of training.

This is not to knock quentyn's actions to date. Sure he's had no training, but in all the situations he's turned out to BE the best trained, simply for his lack of ability (as in the wright saga) or the fact that he is the sole person who can safely handle a dangerous magical timebomb.

Im kind of in the middle as far as this is concerned, yes the legal establisment can hardly be omicsient, thereby requireing vigilance on the part of citizens. However this vigilance does not always entail becomming an unofficial arm of the police force. And yes, i dont agree with his tactics, but i think Guilder's worries are possibly justified? Especially in thinking that perhaps having a child in possession of these powers is at least worrying, and at most, potentially harmful to the village, to its citizens, and most of all, to Quentyn himself.

As a final illustration. Without training in areas such as crisis management, shooting protocols, victim and hostage situations, criminal negotiation and so on ... an armed vigilante in a crisis can become exceedingly dangerous, to others and to himself and his family (especially in terms of litigation). Without the training or experience to fall back on, judgement calls and actions fall to the person's individual personality. Judgements that could well be incorrect, or at least impossible to prove, leading to harm and thereby responsibility falling singularily on the person involved (and in legal terms possibly affecting their family too).

Quentyn has survived these trials thanks to his iron will, good heart and quick thinking/ adaptability. He's made the right calls time and time again ... but there is no denying that there has been ALOT of luck too. By all rights it was dumb luck and reputation (coupled with misinformation) that saved his life at the hands of the royals, had they simply not have recognised his forelock and gotten him confused as a member of the guardsmen ... well ... yeah you get the picture.

In short, there are ALOT of reasons why you shouldnt do something, simply because "there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others". But rather, you should only take it on yourself if you are, honestly, the best equipped and positioned to handle it. Anything less is irresponsible and potentially reckless.

[SolidusRaccoon]

Well I guess he is not a major league a hole.

[Mike Fang]

No, but I'd expect that he wouldn't try to hamper somebody who was willing to do something personally to try and uphold and enforce the law.

And no, you're not supposed to depend on the system entirely. The police are very important to preventing crime, but if there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others, there's no reason you shouldn't do it. Things such as be a responsible owner of a personal firearm, start a neighborhood watch in an area that has a crime problem, or look into potential problems that are brought to your attention (like if your kid says to you that there's a boy in his class who comes into school ever day with a black eye or some other kind of injury, or if a coworker is worried and says they've seen someone hanging around the parking lot for unusually long periods of time).

That's not being a vigilante. That's being a responsible citizen.

And you can stow the 'tude with your comments about capes and masks. Trying to de-legitimize my point by taking it to an unrealistic extreme is a really childish way of arguing against it.

I should point out that it is also part of a responsible citizen's job to acknowledge their own limits and to accept responsibility for what they can and cant do. By and large this involves handing difficult situations over to those who are best trained to handle them.

Your example about the neighbourhood watch, the vigilant schoolchild and the concerned coworker are all well and good. However, when the question comes to "what next", morality can become a bit more blurred.

Say for example, your neighbourhood watch stumbles over suspicious activity, a crime syndicate or a smugglers ring. Do you take it solely upon yourself to break them up and bring them to justice?

This is not the same for the abused child as a personal touch might be needed to find out first why he seems to be getting injured. However, you should also know that at the same time, you are (most likely) not a trained psychiatrist or social worker and might therefore not be as well equipped to handle the situation.

The same goes for the co-worker. It could be just a simple explanation, but then again a deranged, possibly psychotic stalker is not something that is best handled by an average citizen.

Its things like this that gets Guilder worried (american political interpretations aside) because while questors are detectives, they are also, by and large, lone wolves in solving their problems. They have special powers and special leeway that allows them to operate outside normal channels. Quentyn now has those powers ... except he's just a kid and has had none of those special kinds of training.

This is not to knock quentyn's actions to date. Sure he's had no training, but in all the situations he's turned out to BE the best trained, simply for his lack of ability (as in the wright saga) or the fact that he is the sole person who can safely handle a dangerous magical timebomb.

Im kind of in the middle as far as this is concerned, yes the legal establisment can hardly be omicsient, thereby requireing vigilance on the part of citizens. However this vigilance does not always entail becomming an unofficial arm of the police force. And yes, i dont agree with his tactics, but i think Guilder's worries are possibly justified? Especially in thinking that perhaps having a child in possession of these powers is at least worrying, and at most, potentially harmful to the village, to its citizens, and most of all, to Quentyn himself.

As a final illustration. Without training in areas such as crisis management, shooting protocols, victim and hostage situations, criminal negotiation and so on ... an armed vigilante in a crisis can become exceedingly dangerous, to others and to himself and his family (especially in terms of litigation). Without the training or experience to fall back on, judgement calls and actions fall to the person's individual personality. Judgements that could well be incorrect, or at least impossible to prove, leading to harm and thereby responsibility falling singularily on the person involved (and in legal terms possibly affecting their family too).

Quentyn has survived these trials thanks to his iron will, good heart and quick thinking/ adaptability. He's made the right calls time and time again ... but there is no denying that there has been ALOT of luck too. By all rights it was dumb luck and reputation (coupled with misinformation) that saved his life at the hands of the royals, had they simply not have recognised his forelock and gotten him confused as a member of the guardsmen ... well ... yeah you get the picture.

In short, there are ALOT of reasons why you shouldnt do something, simply because "there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others". But rather, you should only take it on yourself if you are, honestly, the best equipped and positioned to handle it. Anything less is irresponsible and potentially reckless.

Well for starters given some of the things I've seen and heard I sometimes doubt the so called "trained experts" are all that good at doing their own jobs. I haven't exactly heard glowing praise for the way in which some social workers handle cases of suspected abuse, for one.

And of course I'm not suggesting that people wage one man or one woman wars against crime organizations, for the love of God. Didn't I already say once here I don't appreciate my arguments being taken to an extreme that goes beyond common sense?

Of course you report criminal actions to the proper authorities first, you'd have to be an idiot not to. But if you happen to know that a criminal action is going on and the authorities aren't in a position to act fast enough, the least you can do is waylay the criminals long enough for them to show up.

Like in the example of the stalker in the parking garage. If you should hang back one day at work and see him start to chase a woman through the garage, you call the police on a cell phone (if you have one), then run out and grab him or something. No, you're not a cop who'se trained in subduing suspects, but it doesn't take a black belt in karate to deliver a right hook to the back of some derranged creep's head or to kick him in the stomach. And I don't wanna hear about "Well what if he has a knife" or "what if he's high on PCP" or all those other what if's. While a person's standing around what if-ing, a woman's being chased down by a psychopath who wants to rape her. Sometimes standing up for what's right means taking some personal risk. But if ensuring the safety of one's own hide is more important than helping someone else, that's each person's call.

[BlasTech]

Well for starters, that smuggler's ring comment was more of an analogy with Quentyn in mind. I was trying to split that post into talking about why Gilder might be justified as opposed to vigilanteism in general (it wasnt as obvious as it shouldve been, sorry )

Secondly, you're comments over the efficacity of the system; i concede that point mostly because im not familiar with any stories that you may have heard about american social services. My own experiences here tell me that while there are always stories about people falling through the gap, there are many more untold about dedicated and hardworking people who are really doing their best by the hyppocratic oath.

However, that doesnt mean you should disregard them, which seems to be what you are suggesting. They may not handle the case of abuse well, but if thats true then you can always follow it up. It isnt a case of a "one off toss" to the social workers and then washing your hands or anything.

The final points are all well and good, but you've missed what im saying. From what you said earlier, you seem to be advocating a form of Proactive vigilance. The kind where you see the person watching, or you see the suspicious activity and you take it solely as your job (or as that of your group, in the case of a neighbourhood watch ... in the sense of "lets not bother with the cops they wont do anything") to confront him.

I wont mince words, i do not agree with that form of vigilantism (this is just a general comment, whether or not it applys to you depends on your view on the matter). THAT is simply dissilusionment gone bad where people decide that the system is broken, and therefore useless for anything. they take it upon themselves to do whatever THEY think is right, which may involve intimidation of certain groups and gangs that are harassing the area. In the end its just fanning the flames. (The "Sydney race riots" as they've been termed, are an example of this ... they dont ... frigging ... help)

Your initial stalker example was ambiguous, and the conclusions you could have drawn from it initally were different i think to the ones from the example above. In that situation the person is actively attacking or carrying out an action with intent to commit a crime. In such a case being the person best EQUIPPED and best POSITIONED ( i did say the two of them earlier for a reason) then yes it is your duty to help if you can. If you hate people taking your arguments to an extreme then so do i. I NEVER said i personally thought it was right to sit around and do nothing but "what-if" while someone was in lethal danger (that "own skins" comment has got to me >.>). In this case this is reactive vigilance which i dont have as big a problem with.

However in the real world situations are rarely cut and dried like that, and at least some forethought is always needed. I think my point there still stands.

To pull us slightly back on topic, Questoring is a different thing to simple vigilantisim. It is an official post that deals proactively with problems not suited to the guardsmen (or just because they arnt around). It bears all the responsibilites and such associated with that and it is really an important burden to take up. It was for the old days where bandits roamed and dragons needed slaying ... Quite simply its "frontier justice" and Gilder is worried about the possible effects of having one (particularily a young, idealistic and untrained one) in more "modern" times, a worry that is justified i think.

[Capnregex]

Like in the example of the stalker in the parking garage. ... snip ... a woman's being chased down by a psychopath who wants to rape her. Sometimes standing up for what's right means taking some personal risk. But if ensuring the safety of one's own hide is more important than helping someone else, that's each person's call.

See, that's why it's important to train the skills and be ready to use them to defend yourself or others...

IE: Be prepared by making yourself qualified to defend yourself, and others.
Study martial arts, Exercise your right to bear arms, ect..

Besides, most predators / bullies are cowards, and will not attack if there are others there... acting may be as simple as being seen or heard by the predator. ...

[Mike Fang]

Well for starters, that smuggler's ring comment was more of an analogy with Quentyn in mind. I was trying to split that post into talking about why Gilder might be justified as opposed to vigilanteism in general (it wasnt as obvious as it shouldve been, sorry )

Secondly, you're comments over the efficacity of the system; i concede that point mostly because im not familiar with any stories that you may have heard about american social services. My own experiences here tell me that while there are always stories about people falling through the gap, there are many more untold about dedicated and hardworking people who are really doing their best by the hyppocratic oath.

However, that doesnt mean you should disregard them, which seems to be what you are suggesting. They may not handle the case of abuse well, but if thats true then you can always follow it up. It isnt a case of a "one off toss" to the social workers and then washing your hands or anything.

The final points are all well and good, but you've missed what im saying. From what you said earlier, you seem to be advocating a form of Proactive vigilance. The kind where you see the person watching, or you see the suspicious activity and you take it solely as your job (or as that of your group, in the case of a neighbourhood watch ... in the sense of "lets not bother with the cops they wont do anything") to confront him.

I wont mince words, i do not agree with that form of vigilantism (this is just a general comment, whether or not it applys to you depends on your view on the matter). THAT is simply dissilusionment gone bad where people decide that the system is broken, and therefore useless for anything. they take it upon themselves to do whatever THEY think is right, which may involve intimidation of certain groups and gangs that are harassing the area. In the end its just fanning the flames. (The "Sydney race riots" as they've been termed, are an example of this ... they dont ... frigging ... help)

Your initial stalker example was ambiguous, and the conclusions you could have drawn from it initally were different i think to the ones from the example above. In that situation the person is actively attacking or carrying out an action with intent to commit a crime. In such a case being the person best EQUIPPED and best POSITIONED ( i did say the two of them earlier for a reason) then yes it is your duty to help if you can. If you hate people taking your arguments to an extreme then so do i. I NEVER said i personally thought it was right to sit around and do nothing but "what-if" while someone was in lethal danger (that "own skins" comment has got to me >.>). In this case this is reactive vigilance which i dont have as big a problem with.

However in the real world situations are rarely cut and dried like that, and at least some forethought is always needed. I think my point there still stands.

To pull us slightly back on topic, Questoring is a different thing to simple vigilantisim. It is an official post that deals proactively with problems not suited to the guardsmen (or just because they arnt around). It bears all the responsibilites and such associated with that and it is really an important burden to take up. It was for the old days where bandits roamed and dragons needed slaying ... Quite simply its "frontier justice" and Gilder is worried about the possible effects of having one (particularily a young, idealistic and untrained one) in more "modern" times, a worry that is justified i think.

I agree that Gilder's concern is justified, but he needs to go about a better way of expressing it.

My initial example was ambiguous eh? Okay, fine, maybe it was. But my second example wasn't. Also, I don't see why you let my comment about SOMEONE wanting to save THEIR skin get to you. I didn't accuse you directly.

I seemed to be supporting proactive vigilantism? You apparently didn't bother to read where I said in my second post "Of course you report criminal actions to the proper authorities first, you'd have to be an idiot not to." And even if I hadn't said that, I thought it would've been considered common sense that you don't advocate taking the law into your own hands and trying to administer mob justice. Then again, maybe it is.

capnregex: Amen to that.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Speaking about helping others....

Is anyone here from New York City? On another forum (21st Century Fox), a while back there was some discussion about helping others in an emergency, and of several situations in New York City where the First Responders are treated like criminals:

Though it maybe true for the rest of the United States and perhaps the world, but here in NYC, first repsonders are a joke and are treated as such (being one myself and being at the brunt of such jokes... I had to kick a few rear ends on my position). First- First Responders are treated as good samaritians/volunteers, and once the abulance crews get there- are ordered to leave unless the cops want to ask you questions- in which most of the time its followed with the ratcheting of hand cuffs and a hauling to the police station for questioning as a hostile witness. And people wonder why many of us emergency workers & volunteers dont want to act. Being of an assistance in accidents outside of my *cough! cough!* fair city, things were a lot nicer. Only in NYC are there problems, and I so do hate that. This is 99% of the reasons why I retired from this line of work after I did what I could during 9-11.

I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, as my only experiences with Emergency Response is in my Scout troop, where the boys went with their scoutmaster (he slipped off a log and had to be air-lifted out of a narrow slot canyon) and my training here in Washington State. In WA, the law mandates that a First Responder must stay with the patient until he/she is relieved by a higher authority. In the case of a neck injury, for example, the individual holding the head (usually the EFR, if there is one) will not be relieved until the patient is in the hospital and stabilized by the doctors.

Good Sam laws in Washington are interesting. Naturally, you don't HAVE to stop. But if you make contact with the victim and then leave before a higher-ranked official (EMT, Paramedic, N.P., Doctor) relieves you, you are legally responsible for anything that goes wrong with the patient.

First Responders. Things that make life interesting is how much the law varies from state to state. Also, folks have found out that Good Samaritan laws do NOT protect you from being sued,

As I remember from my red cross training, aparently over here in the uk, the potential exists for you to be charged with manslaughter for failing to aid someone, if you have received first aid training. As far as my instructor was aware it had never been tested in court though.

Also if you cease recusitation there is a very high chance that you will be considered to have killed the person, as you are not qualified to decide that they are beyond help. We were taught several usefull phrases such as "I am untrained in any techniques that would not cause further injury to the victim"

Oh yeah, and unless you are a doctor, you never ever use the word patient....

I, too have some training with CPR, and yes, once we start CPR on a patient, we can't stop until relieved by another CPR trainee and/or a formal medical team.

Questors also have some medical training, as we saw when he treated his own injuries and when he gave Nessie a quick resusitation, AND didn't leave her side until they were back a the village.

It looks like he did right in leaving the Counterfitting Case in the hands of Mulroney & Co., first: because they didn't ask for his help, and second: because he had already assisted them, and thusly put the case in the correct paws.

And despite that, he still got burned, for purely political reasons, I think..


Zacatepongolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[BlasTech]

<snip ... goodbye giant quotebox>

My initial example was ambiguous eh? Okay, fine, maybe it was. But my second example wasn't. Also, I don't see why you let my comment about SOMEONE wanting to save THEIR skin get to you. I didn't accuse you directly.

Noted, although you have to admit that maybe my reaction wasnt wholely unfounded? Guess i just thought it was an indirect attack at me or something ^^;

I seemed to be supporting proactive vigilantism? You apparently didn't bother to read where I said in my second post

Actually i did read all of your second post =.= ... no need to get all huffy . That particular part was actually in reference to your first post. Hence the "from what you said earlier" although i guess i should have also written seemed ... s'what i get for not proofreading >.<

anywhoo, thats about it. i hope gilder can focus his concern more productively than trumping up more bad publicity for quent >.>

Oh, and i also agree with capnregex in the "be prepared" mentality, although id have to pick slightly different examples to be applicable to myself ^^;;;

Jam does raise an interesting point, i didnt think about it (because he didnt seem to be doing what i recognised as proper cpr, what with nessie still in a sitting position) but there may be some basic medical/lux ressusitation techniques that he learnt from school or from the militia drills. Ill keep that in mind before i sell quenty short again