Stingray Attacks Tourist On Holiday In Phuket

[stevenl]

I've had a similar discussion with mr. Morison before.

My conclusion:

Maybe you should consider a position in one of the British tabloids, The Sun perhaps........

is that this is spot on.

[mahtin]

The word ''attack'' doesn't mean flying off to aggressively impale someone. It covers self-defence, too. It may be a natural reflex, but in the English language, what the stingray did constitutes an attack.

University of Miami marine biology professor Ellen Pikitch told AP: "Something like this is really, really extraordinarily rare. I've never heard any reports of a stingray attacking a person. Even when they are under duress, they don't usually attack."

Semantics.

[alanmorison]

Yes, and Steve Irwin is alive and living in Rio.

[huggybear]

Yes, and Steve Irwin is alive and living in Rio.

and this statement proves you still do not have a clue on the topic................

[Jimjim]

Attacking defensively is still attacking. And motorbikes do kill people, they just don't murder them. You can attack without provocation or you can attack with provocation, in defense. It just depends on English usuage. I don't think it was sensationalism in the beginning, the reporter just tried to use a word that fit. It may not be the most accurate word, but it still makes sense.

[huggybear]

Attacking defensively is still attacking. And motorbikes do kill people, they just don't murder them. You can attack without provocation or you can attack with provocation, in defense. It just depends on English usuage. I don't think it was sensationalism in the beginning, the reporter just tried to use a word that fit. It may not be the most accurate word, but it still makes sense.

O.K. well if we are down to semantics lets look at the definitions, geez.......

Attack:

to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands. 2.to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy. note "set upon", note "begin hostilities, note "start an offensive against"

So to state "attacking defensively" is contradictory.

Defense:

resistance against attack; protection:

The stingray that got Steve Irwin was trapped between the cameraman in front of it and Irwin over the top of it. It was protecting itself, see definition of defense. It did not "begin hostilities, Irwin and team did.

The lady that got hit that began this whole saga was not attacked, she began hostilities by stepping on the dam_n ray.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Stingray do not attack human. They defend themselves when stepped on .

For the Steve Austin case, it is not different at all. If he had kept a safety distance and let this animal alone, he would still be here.

Usually, when an animal attacks, it is for its survival (food, threat, etc.....). Other than that, yes it is self defense....Only humans attack for no valid reason.

What has either the six million dollar man, or, the wrestler/actor, got to do with all of this?

Edited September 27, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[TheWizardofRnR]

Could this have been the same Sting ray that got the Crocodile Hunter ???

[alanmorison]

Anyway, where were we? Ah yes . . . .

Surely the most important point is that the locals knew there were more stingrays about but the tourist/visitor was not told.

Local communities seeking tourists for homestays should share their knowledge about what's in the water.

Otherwise there will be more attacks. And more pain all round.

Edited October 21, 2008 by alanmorison

[alanmorison]

Huggybear,

Yes, it's all about english and semantics. 'Attack' is both a noun AND a verb. 'Self-defence' is a just a noun. 'Attack' and 'defence' are opposites. When a stingray strikes, it's a counter-attack. To defend is to protect or guard oneself, or, say, a fortress. It does not imply striking out. A counter-attack is something different. That's what the stingray did. It counter-attacked. Reflexive, perhaps, but an attack, nevertheless.

Even in the US, it would be difficult to imagine the introductory paragraph reading: ''A STINGRAY self-defended a woman as she swam at a beach on Ko Yao Noi on Saturday evening, inflicting a painful wound.''

[Boksida]

Neither Steve Irwin nor the woman in Phuket would have been attacked if they had been using Sun Block with a SPF of >25.

This protects against all harmful rays and is something tourists should be advised about.

[stevenl]

Let's see a few sensational and original posts from you.

Why does Huggy have to be sensational? You are already providing plenty of sensational posts under the pretense of journalism.

[alanmorison]

Stevenl,

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's nonsense. Huggy's headlines were sensationalism at its worst.

Our journalism is sensational. There is a difference

I fail to see what this diversion of Huggy's has with the central issue of a stingray attack on a tourist.

Perhaps you could explain?

I'm all in favor of the sunblock solution.

Edited October 23, 2008 by alanmorison

[stevenl]

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's nonsense. Huggy's headlines were sensationalism at its worst.

Our journalism is sensational.

I am saying your 'journalism' is sensational, you say my opinion is nonsense. In the next line you say your journalism is sensational. So the only difference is: you cal it journalism, I call it 'journalism'.

[pumpuiman]

The word "attack" suggests some sort of premeditated aggression.....clearly not the case here.

Sucked me in to the thread though

[juggernaut]

Stingray do not attack human. They defend themselves when stepped on .

For the Steve Austin case, it is not different at all.

Who is Steve Austin?

[alanmorison]

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's nonsense. Huggy's headlines were sensationalism at its worst.

Our journalism is sensational.

I am saying your 'journalism' is sensational, you say my opinion is nonsense. In the next line you say your journalism is sensational. So the only difference is: you cal it journalism, I call it 'journalism'.

Feel free to call it what you like. I am not sure the single quotes make any difference. Does that mean we agree on something?

If something is 'sensational' then it's usually good. But 'sensationalism' is bad. Another trick of the English language.

[stevenl]

I stand corrected, IMO your journalism is sensationalism.

So I'm sorry, we don't agree on this.

[steelepulse]

>>Even in the US, it would be difficult to imagine the introductory paragraph reading: ''A STINGRAY self-defended a woman as she swam at a beach on Ko Yao Noi on Saturday evening, inflicting a painful wound.''

Wouldn't it be "A STINGRAY defended itself when a woman swam to close blah blah"? 

[alanmorison]

>>Even in the US, it would be difficult to imagine the introductory paragraph reading: ''A STINGRAY self-defended a woman as she swam at a beach on Ko Yao Noi on Saturday evening, inflicting a painful wound.''

Wouldn't it be "A STINGRAY defended itself when a woman swam to close blah blah"?

Only if you believe Nemo is out there and can actually talk. The stingray (counter) attacked the woman. She accidentally stood on it. The stingray reacted. Its reaction was probably pure reflex . . . But a barb through the skin is still a (counter) attack.

Don't believe everything you see in Disney films! Animals can hurt you, too!

And if you find one that talks, please let me know.

[alanmorison]

I stand corrected, IMO your journalism is sensationalism.

So I'm sorry, we don't agree on this.

Ok . . . is that everything I write, or just some of it, or all of Phuketwan's reporting? You must have read most of it to make such a sweeping generalisation.

Perhaps you could nominate one example of ''sensationalism''? Perhaps one of our 50 updates reporting the airport blockade accurately over those three days, or breaking the news about box jellyfish being found off Phuket? Or our forecast of the economy of the island for the coming high season?

Phuketwan's journalism does not pretend to be perfect, no journalism does. We try very hard to get it right. We check our facts. Mostly, we get it right. It is certainly better than living in an information vacuum.

So, Steve, let's go through this one thing at a time . . . just what have we done that you think is ''sensationalism''?

[stevenl]

Alan,

According to the Cambridge Dictionar BTW sensational is not only good:

2 DISAPPROVING describes news reports and articles that are intended to excite or shock people rather than be serious:

Some of the more sensational Japanese newspapers have given a lot of coverage to the scandal.

Ok . . . is that everything I write, or just some of it, or all of Phuketwan's reporting? You must have read most of it to make such a sweeping generalisation.

After reading Phuketwan a couple of times, I felt no need to read it any more because of the resemblance to the English tabloids. Your occasional post here confirms that opinion, so I am not reading Phuketwan anymore.

And, no, sorry, I am not going to give you examples here, there have been plenty over time, I even recall we had a discussion earlier about this, and just as in this thread, you refuse to open yourself to crticism from anybody else, so what is the point?

[alanmorison]

Alan,

According to the Cambridge Dictionar BTW sensational is not only good:

2 DISAPPROVING describes news reports and articles that are intended to excite or shock people rather than be serious:

Some of the more sensational Japanese newspapers have given a lot of coverage to the scandal.

Ok . . . is that everything I write, or just some of it, or all of Phuketwan's reporting? You must have read most of it to make such a sweeping generalisation.

After reading Phuketwan a couple of times, I felt no need to read it any more because of the resemblance to the English tabloids. Your occasional post here confirms that opinion, so I am not reading Phuketwan anymore.

And, no, sorry, I am not going to give you examples here, there have been plenty over time, I even recall we had a discussion earlier about this, and just as in this thread, you refuse to open yourself to crticism from anybody else, so what is the point?

I welcome intelligent criticism, just not the ill-informed kind. You have been challenged to put up. This pointless diversion from the topic was created by you and a couple of others who are happy to slur the professions of other posters, without good reason, and without the capacity to justify their complaints. Tabloid minds are the problem.

[stevenl]

I welcome intelligent criticism, just not the ill-informed kind.

Sorry, but there really is no point in a discussion with you, we have talked about this earlier, and any criticism gets simply ignored or slashed down.

Talking about a profession: my original profession is in communications.

[huggybear]

I welcome intelligent criticism, just not the ill-informed kind.

Sorry, but there really is no point in a discussion with you, we have talked about this earlier, and any criticism gets simply ignored or slashed down.

Talking about a profession: my original profession is in communications.

Stevenl, I've been through this already with Mr. Morison and getting him to understand is like, well, getting a stingray to attack you without provocation.

Save your breath, (or fingertips) it's not worth it.

[alanmorison]

Does this mean that I can get back to accurately reporting what's happening on the island without wasting my time on anonymous critics whose only intent is to make baseless slurs and deliver idle provocations?

What a relief . . . say hello to Nemo for me.

[alanmorison]

Before I go, just let me get back to the central point of the discussion. Having lost that debate, you turned the discussion into an assault on me and my profession.

Just for the record, journalists have done more to give you the freedom of speech you have on thai visa and in daily life that any other group in society. They take generalised, ill-informed slagging from ill-informed slaggers every day, and mostly get on with their job. But the freedoms you take for granted today have mostly been won by journalists and journalism, good and bad, throughout history.

Did the stingray attack the woman? Yes, of course it did. While I go along with some of the principles espoused by Peter Singer and Animal Liberation, it's a big, big mistake to attribute human characteristics to animals. ''Self-defence'' is best left to the courts of law. It's a human thing, not an animal thing.

Many animals defend themselves without inflicting harm on whatever confronts them. If the stingray rolled up into a ball, that would be defence.

Putting a painful barb into a swimmer's foot or Steve Irwin's chest is not defensive in any shape or form: it's an all-out counter-attack, an attempt to cause injury.

Only people who have seen too many Disney movies, and a few marine biologists who grow too close to their subjects, could see it any other way.

Thanks, guys. Happy to have you criticise anything on phuketwan to your heart's content.

Cherish your hard-won freedom.

Edited November 2, 2008 by alanmorison

[tw25rw]

Of course a stingray doesn't understand the consequences of thrashing it's tail at a perceived assailant and probably isn't even aware that it even has a sting. it's just instinctive behaviour when it feels threatened.

[grandpops]

This is all about the word ''attack,'' which I say is applicable whether the action is in self-defence, reflexive, aggressive, or not. A barb through the skin, injecting toxin, constitutes an attack. The victim did not impale herself on the barb. The stingray attacked her, according to the dictionary definition of ''attack.''

Yes, the Phuket tabloids (who has the Phuket alien baby anyway?) will sensationalize and deem the word "attack" the same as "defense".

As I posted earlier, we all can come to our own conclusions regarding this phuketwan article, but as myself and a few others have mentioned, this is just complete B.S. AND as mentioned by another poster not helping the tourism business here.

Phuketwan spoke to three people who were at the beach, and a fourth who was at the hospital, so I consider the account of the stingray attack to be fair and reasonable. Others clearly have a different take on the use of the word ''attack.'' We also quoted a Ministry of Tourism and Sport official who said it was a rare event that it was unlikly to affect tourism. My view is that informed travellers will hesitate to visit a destination that fails to be honest and upfront about these kinds of incidents. Greater harm is done by not reporting them.

The amount of people that will read this pap on your site mate will amount to the same as not reporting them!

[grandpops]

Before I go, just let me get back to the central point of the discussion. Having lost that debate, you turned the discussion into an assault on me and my profession.

Just for the record, journalists have done more to give you the freedom of speech you have on thai visa and in daily life that any other group in society. They take generalised, ill-informed slagging from ill-informed slaggers every day, and mostly get on with their job. But the freedoms you take for granted today have mostly been won by journalists and journalism, good and bad, throughout history.

For the record, they are the biggest abusers of freedom of speech.

Did the stingray attack the woman? Yes, of course it did. While I go along with some of the principles espoused by Peter Singer and Animal Liberation, it's a big, big mistake to attribute human characteristics to animals. ''Self-defence'' is best left to the courts of law. It's a human thing, not an animal thing.

Many animals defend themselves without inflicting harm on whatever confronts them. If the stingray rolled up into a ball, that would be defence. No, that would be a hedgehog.

Putting a painful barb into a swimmer's foot or Steve Irwin's chest is not defensive in any shape or form: it's an all-out counter-attack, an attempt to cause injury. No. An all out counter attack is what journos do when the bar shuts.

Only people who have seen too many Disney movies, and a few marine biologists who grow too close to their subjects, could see it any other way.

Thanks, guys. Happy to have you criticise anything on phuketwan to your heart's content.

Never heard of it mate. Thats why you are on here plugging it and not debating it with the hordes of visitors to your website.

Cherish your hard-won freedom.

Wow, beer o'clock has come early today hasn't it.