Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:35 pm

lovedust wrote:There's quite an interesting write-up on the topic in the New York Times. Excerpt:

"The plan calls for a $66 million stainless-steel net system 20 feet below the sidewalk. Over the years, much concern has been expressed about marring the bridge’s beauty; the barrier will be invisible from most angles. Many critics continue to assert that suicidal people will always find another way. Experts who have appeared before the board explained that the suicidal impulse is typically fleeting...

Eve R. Meyer, executive director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, said the popular argument was based on ignorance. “Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient,” she said. For years, she said, when she raised the issue of a barrier before the board, she was shunned.

Dr. Mel Blaustein, medical director of psychiatry at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco and an early proponent of a barrier, said, “Young people think the bridge is a perfect place to go.”

People see jumping off the bridge as an easy way to die, he said. “There is a misconception that it’s painless.”

Those who jump plummet 220 feet and typically suffer rib collapse on impact, lacerating lungs and other internal organs, said Ken Holmes, the retired Marin County coroner who saw so many bodies of bridge suicides that he became a major crusader for a barrier. He said they die of internal bleeding or drowning.

Dr. Blaustein said, “The most common myth to explode is that people will go elsewhere.”

In a 1978 study, “Where Are They Now?” Richard H. Seiden, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, looked at the question of whether someone prevented from committing suicide in one place would go somewhere else. He studied people who attempted suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge from 1937 to 1971 and found that more than 90 percent were still alive in 1978 or had died of natural causes."

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/us/suicides-mounting-golden-gate-looks-to-add-a-safety-net.html?_r=0

As seen other experts disagree and she eludes to this and why?

Human intervention was what helped people, not nets

I keep telling you this, nets are not going to coach people as patrols do or then offer them added help, hence why her views are clearly flawed

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:36 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Oh Didge, you do like making yourself look a fool don't you. Do you think anyone will believe that you are a practicing psychologist with the mental health issues you show in your postings on forums. And you have no idea what understanding I have of mental health issues, or why. So go back to the Quill posse and send him some more pms.

Never claimed to be a practicing psychologist, but I have qualifications in psychology, which means I have an understanding, which clearly as seen you do not.
You know fuck all, you never can debate the points and just C&P all the time, again you cannot answer the many points I hace posted, because clearly there is not a Google guide to help you!

I am not part of any posse, I just respect Quill as having very good knowledge, he does not need to C&P everything like yyou do and as seen you still cannot refute my points, mainly because you cannot Google it!

Your points have been refuted over and over again. You're just too stupid and to up yourself to notice.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:36 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Never claimed to be a practicing psychologist, but I have qualifications in psychology, which means I have an understanding, which clearly as seen you do not.
You know fuck all, you never can debate the points and just C&P all the time, again you cannot answer the many points I hace posted, because clearly there is not a Google guide to help you!

I am not part of any posse, I just respect Quill as having very good knowledge, he does not need to C&P everything like yyou do and as seen you still cannot refute my points, mainly because you cannot Google it!

Your points have been refuted over and over again. You're just too stupid and to up yourself to notice.

Really, so you just saying they are wrong is refuting them then?

Score on that one sassy, as seen you cannot google an answer

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:.

So Didge... It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:39 pm

lovedust wrote:There's quite an interesting write-up on the topic in the New York Times. Excerpt:

"The plan calls for a $66 million stainless-steel net system 20 feet below the sidewalk. Over the years, much concern has been expressed about marring the bridge’s beauty; the barrier will be invisible from most angles. Many critics continue to assert that suicidal people will always find another way. Experts who have appeared before the board explained that the suicidal impulse is typically fleeting...

Eve R. Meyer, executive director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, said the popular argument was based on ignorance. “Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient,” she said. For years, she said, when she raised the issue of a barrier before the board, she was shunned.

Dr. Mel Blaustein, medical director of psychiatry at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco and an early proponent of a barrier, said, “Young people think the bridge is a perfect place to go.”

People see jumping off the bridge as an easy way to die, he said. “There is a misconception that it’s painless.”

Those who jump plummet 220 feet and typically suffer rib collapse on impact, lacerating lungs and other internal organs, said Ken Holmes, the retired Marin County coroner who saw so many bodies of bridge suicides that he became a major crusader for a barrier. He said they die of internal bleeding or drowning.

Dr. Blaustein said, “The most common myth to explode is that people will go elsewhere.”

In a 1978 study, “Where Are They Now?” Richard H. Seiden, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, looked at the question of whether someone prevented from committing suicide in one place would go somewhere else. He studied people who attempted suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge from 1937 to 1971 and found that more than 90 percent were still alive in 1978 or had died of natural causes."

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/us/suicides-mounting-golden-gate-looks-to-add-a-safety-net.html?_r=0

That's the same stuff we've heard for 20-years, LD. You have to understand that Eve R. Meyer and San Francisco Suicide Prevention want the barrier to be built. So she is a lobbyist for it.

This is a different question: Instead of putting up hardware, could you think of a better way to spend $77-million on suicide prevention? Of course, Eve wants her cake and eat it too. But she reaches for what she can get.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:39 pm

lovedust wrote:
Original Quill wrote:.

So Didge... It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

Lovedust do not drag me into your feuds when I stated already you are not part of any gang.

Quill and I had our differences but were adult enough to move past them, maybe you should try it also

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:41 pm

Well, thankfully by tonight they will have voted, and the experts will have shown them the way to go, not the no nothings spouting stuff they know nothing about on here.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

Lovedust do not drag me into your feuds when I stated already you are not part of any gang.

Quill and I had our differences but were adult enough to move past them, maybe you should try it also

Lovedust was just pointing out that Quill's claims against us are as idiotic as were his claims about you.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Sassy wrote:Well, thankfully by tonight they will have voted, and the experts will have shown them the way to go, not the no nothings spouting stuff they know nothing about on here.

Will they, I think they will have only shown anything if it reduces suicides, if not and it increases over the net few years, it will show it was human prevention that helped and not nets!
The only thing it will have achieved is less people having to deal with such suicides

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
lovedust wrote:There's quite an interesting write-up on the topic in the New York Times. Excerpt:

"The plan calls for a $66 million stainless-steel net system 20 feet below the sidewalk. Over the years, much concern has been expressed about marring the bridge’s beauty; the barrier will be invisible from most angles. Many critics continue to assert that suicidal people will always find another way. Experts who have appeared before the board explained that the suicidal impulse is typically fleeting...

Eve R. Meyer, executive director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, said the popular argument was based on ignorance. “Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient,” she said. For years, she said, when she raised the issue of a barrier before the board, she was shunned.

Dr. Mel Blaustein, medical director of psychiatry at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco and an early proponent of a barrier, said, “Young people think the bridge is a perfect place to go.”

People see jumping off the bridge as an easy way to die, he said. “There is a misconception that it’s painless.”

Those who jump plummet 220 feet and typically suffer rib collapse on impact, lacerating lungs and other internal organs, said Ken Holmes, the retired Marin County coroner who saw so many bodies of bridge suicides that he became a major crusader for a barrier. He said they die of internal bleeding or drowning.

Dr. Blaustein said, “The most common myth to explode is that people will go elsewhere.”

In a 1978 study, “Where Are They Now?” Richard H. Seiden, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, looked at the question of whether someone prevented from committing suicide in one place would go somewhere else. He studied people who attempted suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge from 1937 to 1971 and found that more than 90 percent were still alive in 1978 or had died of natural causes."

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/us/suicides-mounting-golden-gate-looks-to-add-a-safety-net.html?_r=0

That's the same stuff we've heard for 20-years, LD. You have to understand that Eve R. Meyer and San Francisco Suicide Prevention want the barrier to be built. So she is a lobbyist for it.

Yes - and she's the premier expert on suicide prevention in San Francisco?

This is a different question: Instead of putting up hardware, could you think of a better way to spend $77-million on suicide prevention? Of course, Eve wants her cake and eat it too. But she reaches for what she can get.

But I thought the vast majority of the funding is coming from federal transport budgets rather than mental health ones, so isn't taking away from other Suicide Prevention budgets anyway?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:46 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Lovedust do not drag me into your feuds when I stated already you are not part of any gang.

Quill and I had our differences but were adult enough to move past them, maybe you should try it also

Lovedust was just pointing out that Quill's claims against us are as idiotic as were his claims about you.

Of which I have asked her not to drag me into, as I have resolved my differences with Quill, is very simple even to a halfwit such as yourself.
The reality is I know from the fact of the other moderators it was you that coordinated everything against me on speakfree, mainly because I made you look such a tit!

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:46 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And you have a good source for that claim?? Let's have it.

Try reading the Agenda, after all, it's been posted and you should have one at home.

An agenda is a list of topics:

Free Merrium wrote:a·gen·da
əˈjendə/
noun
noun: agenda; plural noun: agendas

1.
a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.
"the question of nuclear weapons had been removed from the agenda"
synonyms: list of items, schedule, program, timetable, itinerary, lineup, list, plan,

The question is, do you have a record someone will vouch for, if not a formal declaration? Agendas have a lot of bullshite in them, but no one ever signs one over an attestation or a Notary Public.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:49 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

Lovedust do not drag me into your feuds when I stated already you are not part of any gang.

Quill and I had our differences but were adult enough to move past them, maybe you should try it also

Sorry Didge, but I have no feud with Quill. I'm just fed up with the false accusations.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:50 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Lovedust do not drag me into your feuds when I stated already you are not part of any gang.

Quill and I had our differences but were adult enough to move past them, maybe you should try it also

Sorry Didge, but I have no feud with Quill. I'm just fed up with the false accusations.

No worries Lovedust, as stated I disagree with Quill on you being part of any gang!

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:00 pm

lovedust wrote:
Original Quill wrote:.

So Didge... It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

Didge and I have been on opposing sides many, many times. But that only proves that we can be objective and be on the same side the next time.

I have a great respect for Didge, and we enjoy our exchanges. He has a Masters Degree in History and I have a PhD in the History of British Political Theory. We have a lot in common.

You, LD, Sass, JD and Irn--along with a couple of others we need not bring in here--have banded together in a cyber gotcha gang...for simplicity, call it the Sassy posse. This whole thread is a huge trolling fishing trip for y'all. There is no such interest in the GGBHTD in Scotland or England, so why all the interest here??? Ahah, there is heavy interest in your collective hearts in building a total thread to move forward your gang activities. How come y'all showed up at the precise same time? Was that a set-up...methinks it was. The PM went out, and you were like the second poster on this thread...strange that, eh? Irn was the third or fourth. Poor JD...never checks his email. He didn't get the message until later.

It's great diversion, I know LD. But it belongs in the recreation section.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:14 pm

Oh dear, poor soul. Persecution complex.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:16 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh dear, poor soul. Persecution complex.

more proof this thread has little to do with suicides for you!

It is about a childish attempt to get at Quill.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:20 pm

I forgot to mention Stephenmara...he's always quick to respond to sassy's call. He's been here, too. Look around page 1, 2 or 3.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:27 pm

Some people just have this complex that they are the centre of the universe and the only thing interesting in the world is them. Quill is one of those people.

My interest in suicide and bridges stems from the time I lived in Taunton and a friend of mine was going to jump from the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Luckily, it was after they had put in the barriers. There was a study done before the barriers were erected that showed they would work, and thankfully they did. The evidence and conclusions that were reached by the experts were exactly the same as those reached by the experts re the Golden Gate Bridge:

Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: implications for prevention

Olive Bennewith, BA

Mike Nowers, MD, FRCPsych

David Gunnell, PhD

+ Author Affiliations

Academic Unit of Psychiatry, Cotham House, Bristol
Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership, Cossham Hospital, Kingswood and Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Professor David Gunnell, Department of Social Medicine, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR; UK. Tel: +44 (0) 0117 928 7253; fax: +44 (0) 0117 928 7325; email: D.J.Gunnell@Bristol.ac.uk

Declaration of interest None.

Next Section
Abstract

We assessed the effect of the installation of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, Bristol, England, in 1998 on local suicides by jumping. Deaths from this bridge halved from 8.2 per year (1994–1998) to 4.0 per year (1999–2003; P=0.008). Although 90% of the suicides from the bridge were by males, there was no evidence of an increase in male suicide by jumping from other sites in the Bristol area after the erection of the barriers. This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of barriers on bridges in preventing site-specific suicides and suicides by jumping overall in the surrounding area.
Previous SectionNext Section

A number of sites around the world, particularly bridges, have gained notoriety as places from which suicide by jumping is popular (Gunnell & Nowers, 1997). As many acts of self-harm are impulsive in nature (Mann, 2003), restricting access to commonly used methods can result in reductions in both method-specific and overall suicide rates.

While two studies have found barriers to be effective in the prevention of suicide by jumping from particular bridges (O'Carroll et al, 1994; Beautrais, 2001) neither study investigated thoroughly the effects on suicide by jumping from other sites nearby and overall suicides. In December 1998, two metre-high wire barriers were installed on the main span of the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol. For architectural reasons similar protective measures were not placed on the buttress walls at either end of the bridge (a photograph of the bridge is available as a data supplement to the online version of this paper). We used local and national suicide data to assess the effectiveness of these barriers in suicide prevention.
Previous SectionNext Section
METHOD

The Clifton suspension bridge is located at the centre of the geographic area served by the Bristol coroner (Nowers & Gunnell, 1996). The bridge is over 6 km from the nearest psychiatric hospital; it is 75 m above the river and the case fatality of jumps from the bridge is over 95%.

Coroners' inquest files were examined to obtain information on all suicides occurring in the Bristol area, 5 years before (1994–1998) and 5 years after (1999–2003) the installation of the barriers. All deaths with an inquest verdict of suicide were included in the study. Records of deaths given an open, accidental or misadventure verdict by the coroner were also examined, as previous research suggests that some deaths that are likely to be suicide are given such verdicts for legal reasons (O'Donnell & Farmer, 1995). For cases given these verdicts, vignettes describing the events leading up to the death were written (O.B.). The likelihood (high, medium, low or unclear) that these deaths were suicide was rated independently by D.G. and M.N., masked to the year of death. Only cases rated as medium or high likelihood were included in the study. Where the raters disagreed in their initial coding, consensus was reached through discussion. Of the 451 cases given a verdict other than suicide (open, n=189; accident or misadventure, n=260; no verdict, n=2), independent ratings by D.G. and M.N. resulted in agreement on inclusion or exclusion in 383 (84.9%) cases. After discussion a consensus on inclusion or exclusion was reached in the remaining 68 cases. We did not examine the coroner's files for accidental acute alcohol poisonings or deaths from illegal drug use or methadone poisoning, as determining the possibility of suicide in such deaths is particularly problematic.

For all cases of suicide information was obtained on the person's date of death, age and gender. To compute local and national rates of suicide, relevant population and mortality data were obtained from the Office for National Statistics on: (a) the number of suicides by jumping in England and Wales: ICD–10 codes X80 and Y30 (World Health Organization, 1992); (b) the overall number of suicides in England and Wales: ICD–10 codes X60–X84, Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 (where verdict pending); (c) population figures for the years 1994 to 2003.

Statistical analyses were carried out using Stata version 8.2 for Windows. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of deaths by jumping in the years before and after the construction of the barriers.
Previous SectionNext Section
RESULTS

There were 987 suicides in the Bristol area over the 10-year study period. Of these deaths, 134 (13.6%) were suicides by jumping, 61 from the Clifton suspension bridge. There were a further 4 deaths where both the location of the body or skeletal remains and indications of trauma suggested that the person might have fallen from the bridge (n=3) or from nearby cliffs (n=1). All these deaths occurred before the barriers were erected, were given open verdicts and the remains were never identified; none of these deaths was included in subsequent analyses.

The number of deaths by jumping from the Clifton suspension bridge halved (from 41 to 20; P=0.008) in the 5 years after the construction of the barriers compared with the previous 5 years (Table 1). Ninety per cent (55 of 61) of the people who died in this way were male, and the decline in deaths was seen in men only.
View this table:

In this window
In a new window

Table 1

Suicides by jumping before (1994–98) and after (1999–2003) the installation of preventive barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge

Before the barriers were erected (1994–1998) 30 of the 31 suicides (97%) for which the site of the jump was recorded were from the span of the bridge and only one (3%) from the buttresses. In the subsequent 5 years nearly half (8/17) of the jumps for which the site was recorded were from the buttresses where no fencing was in place. In the 5 years after the construction of the barriers there was a non-significant increase compared with the previous 5 years in the number of deaths by jumping from sites other than the suspension bridge: from 6.2 deaths per year to 8.4 deaths per year (P=0.2). This increase was entirely due to a rise in female deaths by jumping – in keeping with national trends in female suicide by jumping (see Table 1).

There was a non-significant fall in the mean number of deaths per year (14.4 to 12.4; P=0.4) by jumping from all sites in the area across the two study periods. This fall was due to a reduction in male (P=0.017) suicides by jumping. There was an increase in suicides by jumping among women (P=0.001). There was no change in the overall rate of suicide among those resident in the area during the periods before and after the placement of the barriers on the bridge: mean annual rate 11.2 per 100 000 v. 10.5 per 100 000, difference–0.7 (95% CI–1.9 to 0.9), P=0.39. This was the case for both men (difference–1.8 per 100 000, 95% CI–1.7 to 0.9) and women (difference 0.4 per 100 000, 95% CI–0.9 to 2.1).
Previous SectionNext Section
DISCUSSION

The number of deaths by jumping from the Clifton suspension bridge halved following the installation of the preventive barriers. Although there was a decrease overall in the number of deaths by jumping in the area among men, this was not the case for women. However, any impact on female suicide rates would be expected to be minimal, as only one woman jumped from the bridge in the 5 years prior to the installation of the barriers and national data suggest that suicide by jumping among females is increasing, although the proportional increase across the two study periods was higher in the Bristol area.

This study provides evidence for the preventive role of barriers on bridges. There was some evidence that the presence of the barriers did not lead to an increase in deaths by jumping from other sites. The case-fatality rate among those jumping from the Clifton bridge is greater than 95%. Therefore, any displacement of people deterred from jumping to other methods of suicidal behaviour is likely to have a beneficial effect on levels of suicide, because no other method is associated with such a high case fatality. In view of continued suicides from some parts of the Clifton suspension bridge structure, further work to improve the safety of the site is warranted.
Previous SectionNext Section
Acknowledgments

We thank Mr Paul Forrest, HM Coroner for Avon, staff employed at the coroner's office, and Ms Alison Brown and search room staff at the Bristol Records Office, for their help in accessing suicide data. Local and national population data and national suicide data were provided by the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales. The study was funded by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Received June 6, 2006.
Revision received November 6, 2006.
Accepted November 14, 2006.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/190/3/266.full

My friend is alive and well thanks to those barriers. I hope many people who would have lost friends and loved ones from jumping from the GG Bridge still have them alive for many years after the nets completion.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:28 pm

Wow more C&P, great debating skills there sassy!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:29 pm

lovedust wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's the same stuff we've heard for 20-years, LD. You have to understand that Eve R. Meyer and San Francisco Suicide Prevention want the barrier to be built. So she is a lobbyist for it.

Yes - and she's the premier expert on suicide prevention in San Francisco?

This is a different question: Instead of putting up hardware, could you think of a better way to spend $77-million on suicide prevention? Of course, Eve wants her cake and eat it too. But she reaches for what she can get.

But I thought the vast majority of the funding is coming from federal transport budgets rather than mental health ones, so isn't taking away from other Suicide Prevention budgets anyway?

Completely right Lovey.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:31 pm

Look Sassy, I can do the same, I posted these and nobody even bothered to see what many of them say, but hey ho, I o not mind supporting evidence posted with links, but every other post with you is somebody else opinion and not your own,

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/state-suicide-prevention-planning-brief.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_Strategic_Direction_Full_Version-a.pdf

http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/nssp

http://www.sprc.org/

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:39 pm

My opinion Didge, is that after reading expert after expert, and having my friend's life saved by a barrier, and knowing that it has been proved it does not increase suicides in other areas, I'm all for it. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:42 pm

Sassy wrote:My opinion Didge, is that after reading expert after expert, and having my friend's life saved by a barrier, and knowing that it has been proved it does not increase suicides in other areas, I'm all for it. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Well that's it sassy...I said it earlier....if these measures save evn one life then they have to be worth it...

Unless some are putting the cost of safety features before lives.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:44 pm

Sassy wrote:My opinion Didge, is that after reading expert after expert, and having my friend's life saved by a barrier, and knowing that it has been proved it does not increase suicides in other areas, I'm all for it. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Really, so expert opinion you claim, by those who advocate this and not others is how you gain your perception whilst ignoring that it was human prevention that helped stop people committing suicide, how they further helped by them gaining more help, which as seen will be lost now with nets. People advocating the nets have not taken on board the bigger picture and I wonder now if this will increase further gun suicide deaths, now this is not going to be possible to use the bridge and how no patrol is going to chance upon somebody in their own home attempting to take their own life?
You see this view is very narrow minded, over 50% of suicides are by guns, where jumping is very small, showing how so much money is being concentrated into a belief that nets will decrease attempts, of which this belief is based off human intervention itself. That to me is playing a the lottery, as they are equating nets to human intervention, which is not the same by any means at all

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:46 pm

Sassy wrote:Some people just have this complex that they are the centre of the universe and the only thing interesting in the world is them. Quill is one of those people.

But you make it so, sassy. You've admitted to hacking my Bar Association account. You've seen my doctoral account. You have fished around on my activities with the Golden Gate Bridge. You have stalked practically aspect of my life.

Why on earth should I not conclude that this is yet another stalking and gotcha venture? You start a thread on the GGB--which nobody cares about, but you know I am involved in--and 8 posts into the thread you start hammering on me. You are sooo fooking obvious.

If you are going for deniability, try to be more subtle.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:46 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Sassy wrote:My opinion Didge, is that after reading expert after expert, and having my friend's life saved by a barrier, and knowing that it has been proved it does not increase suicides in other areas, I'm all for it. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Well that's it sassy...I said it earlier....if these measures save evn one life then they have to be worth it...

Unless some are putting the cost of safety features before lives.

How will you know it has saved any lives, if suicides increase by other means Joy?

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:27 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Very flawed, as this only looks at one place, it does not take into account many other ways to attempt to kill themselves, if we are to go with the claims that is.

But the whole point of the 'Where Are They Now' study's conclusion was that at least the vast majority of the Golden Gate survivors didn't go on to kill themselves in other ways. So I'm not sure why you think "other ways" would be relevant in a study geared specifically toward preventing the deaths of those who've attempted suicide at the Golden Gate Bridge?

How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

Well you see Didge, you just want to leave in place the ways and the means which will enable people to jump to their death from this very bridge. Most of the reasons why people take their own lives is something that needs to be tacked at a national level and the links you provided demonstrate that help can be provided by individual groups but it doesn’t mean that local communities shouldn’t be doing something over and above that to try and put in place measures that they feel will be beneficial.

You obviously believe that the net is the only preventative measure that the community would have in place to try to stop people taking their lives when you don’t know if that is true. You dismissed the fact that the bridge authorities already have other measures in place which would fit in alongside having a net and it’s in the extract I gave you which you pretty much described as meaningless. They said that district patrol officers etc, already undertake suicide prevention measures – you just missed that in your silly attempt to try and make out that I had plagiarised it which just shows that you don’t even know the meaning of the word. You even came back on that with several links to articles which were not your work so you just did exactly the same thing, so learn from that and don’t make the same mistake again in future.

This bridge has a disgusting legacy in suicides and something needs to be done to stop it getting even worse. I hope as others have said that this is a good idea and a worthwhile project and it is finalised today and construction of the suicide prevention net receives its final approval

And this notion that you have that I waited until you logged off to make another post is just another example of this high opinion that you have of yourself. Forget it - you just ain’t that important.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Ironically you also had "no doubt" at Speakfree that Didge himself was involved in a conspiracy by pm to coordinate board attacks on you under Sassy's guidance. That accusation turned out to be as "perfectly straightforward and truthful" as this one is.

Didge and I have been on opposing sides many, many times. But that only proves that we can be objective and be on the same side the next time.

I have a great respect for Didge, and we enjoy our exchanges. He has a Masters Degree in History and I have a PhD in the History of British Political Theory. We have a lot in common.

You, LD, Sass, JD and Irn--along with a couple of others we need not bring in here--have banded together in a cyber gotcha gang...for simplicity, call it the Sassy posse. This whole thread is a huge trolling fishing trip for y'all. There is no such interest in the GGBHTD in Scotland or England, so why all the interest here??? Ahah, there is heavy interest in your collective hearts in building a total thread to move forward your gang activities. How come y'all showed up at the precise same time? Was that a set-up...methinks it was. The PM went out, and you were like the second poster on this thread...strange that, eh? Irn was the third or fourth. Poor JD...never checks his email. He didn't get the message until later.

It's great diversion, I know LD. But it belongs in the recreation section.

Quill: stop telling lies about me. I've done nothing to you, so if you can't be civil, just leave me in peace.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:29 pm

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:30 pm

And if folk with suicidal thoughts are not able to leap to their death from the bridge...some may well find another way, but some may be too frightened to use another method...

These measure can only be positive.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:36 pm

lovedust wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Didge and I have been on opposing sides many, many times. But that only proves that we can be objective and be on the same side the next time.

I have a great respect for Didge, and we enjoy our exchanges. He has a Masters Degree in History and I have a PhD in the History of British Political Theory. We have a lot in common.

You, LD, Sass, JD and Irn--along with a couple of others we need not bring in here--have banded together in a cyber gotcha gang...for simplicity, call it the Sassy posse. This whole thread is a huge trolling fishing trip for y'all. There is no such interest in the GGBHTD in Scotland or England, so why all the interest here??? Ahah, there is heavy interest in your collective hearts in building a total thread to move forward your gang activities. How come y'all showed up at the precise same time? Was that a set-up...methinks it was. The PM went out, and you were like the second poster on this thread...strange that, eh? Irn was the third or fourth. Poor JD...never checks his email. He didn't get the message until later.

It's great diversion, I know LD. But it belongs in the recreation section.

Quill: stop telling lies about me. I've done nothing to you, so if you can't be civil, just leave me in peace.

I've tried to leave you alone, LD. But every time sassy cooks up one of these threads, there you are. Look...you are the second poster on this thread.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:38 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

Well you see Didge, you just want to leave in place the ways and the means which will enable people to jump to their death from this very bridge. Most of the reasons why people take their own lives is something that needs to be tacked at a national level and the links you provided demonstrate that help can be provided by individual groups but it doesn’t mean that local communities shouldn’t be doing something over and above that to try and put in place measures that they feel will be beneficial.

You obviously believe that the net is the only preventative measure that the community would have in place to try to stop people taking their lives when you don’t know if that is true. You dismissed the fact that the bridge authorities already have other measures in place which would fit in alongside having a net and it’s in the extract I gave you which you pretty much described as meaningless. They said that district patrol officers etc, already undertake suicide prevention measures – you just missed that in your silly attempt to try and make out that I had plagiarised it which just shows that you don’t even know the meaning of the word. You even came back on that with several links to articles which were not your work so you just did exactly the same thing, so learn from that and don’t make the same mistake again in future.

This bridge has a disgusting legacy in suicides and something needs to be done to stop it getting even worse. I hope as others have said that this is a good idea and a worthwhile project and it is finalised today and construction of the suicide prevention net receives its final approval

And this notion that you have that I waited until you logged off to make another post is just another example of this high opinion that you have of yourself. Forget it - you just ain’t that important.

Wow that shows you have not followed any of my points in that it has been human prevention that has stopped and helped many people where again a net will never hope to achieve or accomplish the same thing. In fact it is a belief based off human prevention where a falsehood is being made nets will achieve the same thing. Again I already advocated I would rather the money was spent on 24 hour patrols there and services to help vulnerable people, where as seen what will a net do but only deter people using that place. You then go on about just the bridge, what about the fact that there is nearly 30,000 suicide deaths per year the vast majority being by guns, next by suffocation hen poison, with jumping only a small fraction. That shows to me they are centering on one area an basing a view this will some how prevent people attempting to kill themselves. I see again no logic to that based again off how humans have prevented attempts, you take away the human prevention by installing the nets, thus what have you achieved? You take away the people who can coached people down from such attempts an then also help them afterwards.

Top me the policy is flawed and will only benefit those who suffer dealing with such tragedies or accidents themselves. Th reality is will it prevent suicides and on that the jury is still out, as to me clearly more needs to be done to help people in the first place not, which is where the money would be best directed, as seen we are talking about way more people, than those who attempt to use the bridge.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Quill: stop telling lies about me. I've done nothing to you, so if you can't be civil, just leave me in peace.

I've tried to leave you alone, LD. But every time sassy cooks up one of these threads, there you are. Look...you are the second poster on this thread.

Well how about that lol Nems was the third and also agreed, fancy that, you aren't saying the same about her. Which just goes to show this is all about your paranoia.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Nems wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I think Nems has hit it on the head:

Sassy started this whole thread in order to start a fight. Why? Well, the answer lies in something that Nems pointed to: sympathy or attention.

Now that sassy has embarrassed herself, she wants to play the victim. She has been hurt by something she brought up: her own hospitalization. (Which she brought up to pose as a victim in the first place.) You are here, JD, because you are a loyal sassy posse groupie.

Now that that's straight, I'll be off.

Bet your ears will be burning!

I'm back from my meeting. It's late for me.

Yes, Nems...that was quite a read. When I left it was page one. When I got back it had expanded to 4 nearly full pages.

So Didge: One of the things I learned in reading it over is how much people twist what you say. They start with a tweek, and end with a whole load of bullshit. What is more, they are arguing so hard that they convince themselves that's what happened. A kind of revolving 'reduction of cognitive dissonance.' For example, I never said I was for or against the suicide barrier, I merely pointed out that it altered the aerodynamics of the bridge so the proposal has been raised many times before and rejected. I wasn't even addressing the pending proposal...merely addressing one of the issues. Nonetheless, they are convinced that I was absolutely opposed to the idea.

Moving on, for the record it was sass who first mentioned me on the thread. Eight posts in, she wrote: "Thank goodness for that. Guess Quill didn't get his copy Wink"

**read as: nudge, nudge...quill join in here**

Totally gratuitous remark, not even in response to anything. But as you point out Didge (and Nems), the whole thread was a set up from the get-go. No one in a thousand years would think to write about the GGBHTD, were I not involved. It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

You press some very good points, Didge, all of which have been urged to the Board and in the press many times over the past 20-25 years this has been an issue. LD narrows her focus to the history of suicides on the bridge, which ignores that the money could be better spent elsewhere in the world...a point you have made, but the obstinate few have refused to hear.

But this does bring up an interesting dynamic: the Board's motive is apparently not purely one of saving lives, but also of making sure it doesn't happen in our area of responsibility. This is sort of the Bridge version of the NIMBY sentiment (not in my back yard for those unfamiliar with planning debates). Like LD, the conservatives on the Bridge Board want to stick to the data about the Bridge, meaning by implication that they really don't care about suicides in general.

Fortunately, you and Harves have brought out the other view. It's unfortunate that more people haven't been as honest about why they are posting on this thread. But they are the one's who started the whole thread, and they never intended an honest discussion about suicide anyway. It is an informative topic that runs from statistics, to psychology, to engineering, to Coast Guard activities (they have a station just under the Bridge, at Ft. Baker, to pick up jumpers).

Did anyone actually claim you were against the barrier or are you just making that up?
You need to stop this because you're beginning to sound even more ridiculous. The thread didn't need to turn out this way but you made it so by dragging in other people suggesting they are part of a group out to get you. I'm not anyone's crony so cut out the nonsense and stop making out you are some sort of victim.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:45 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm back from my meeting. It's late for me.

Yes, Nems...that was quite a read. When I left it was page one. When I got back it had expanded to 4 nearly full pages.

So Didge: One of the things I learned in reading it over is how much people twist what you say. They start with a tweek, and end with a whole load of bullshit. What is more, they are arguing so hard that they convince themselves that's what happened. A kind of revolving 'reduction of cognitive dissonance.' For example, I never said I was for or against the suicide barrier, I merely pointed out that it altered the aerodynamics of the bridge so the proposal has been raised many times before and rejected. I wasn't even addressing the pending proposal...merely addressing one of the issues. Nonetheless, they are convinced that I was absolutely opposed to the idea.

Moving on, for the record it was sass who first mentioned me on the thread. Eight posts in, she wrote: "Thank goodness for that. Guess Quill didn't get his copy Wink"

**read as: nudge, nudge...quill join in here**

Totally gratuitous remark, not even in response to anything. But as you point out Didge (and Nems), the whole thread was a set up from the get-go. No one in a thousand years would think to write about the GGBHTD, were I not involved. It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

You press some very good points, Didge, all of which have been urged to the Board and in the press many times over the past 20-25 years this has been an issue. LD narrows her focus to the history of suicides on the bridge, which ignores that the money could be better spent elsewhere in the world...a point you have made, but the obstinate few have refused to hear.

But this does bring up an interesting dynamic: the Board's motive is apparently not purely one of saving lives, but also of making sure it doesn't happen in our area of responsibility. This is sort of the Bridge version of the NIMBY sentiment (not in my back yard for those unfamiliar with planning debates). Like LD, the conservatives on the Bridge Board want to stick to the data about the Bridge, meaning by implication that they really don't care about suicides in general.

Fortunately, you and Harves have brought out the other view. It's unfortunate that more people haven't been as honest about why they are posting on this thread. But they are the one's who started the whole thread, and they never intended an honest discussion about suicide anyway. It is an informative topic that runs from statistics, to psychology, to engineering, to Coast Guard activities (they have a station just under the Bridge, at Ft. Baker, to pick up jumpers).

Did anyone actually claim you were against the barrier or are you just making that up?
You need to stop this because you're beginning to sound even more ridiculous. The thread didn't need to turn out this way but you made it so by dragging in other people suggesting they are part of a group out to get you. I'm not anyone's crony so cut out the nonsense and stop making out you are some sort of victim.

You are right the thread did not need to turn out this way, so why are you not asking why sassy was trying to goad him then?
She clearly did try to goad which shows to me this thread had little to do with suicides, she clearly had intent to try to shame Quill that is obvious an if you are going to be fair then why have you not exposed this point which you tried poorly to cover last night?

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

How does that help the fact over 50% of suicide attempts are made by guns?
22% by strangulation, hanging , suffocation?
about 18% to poisons?
Jumping amounts to a very small percentage over all of suicide attempts in the states, so maybe if you want to prevent, guns would be the avenue to stop people having?

Well you see Didge, you just want to leave in place the ways and the means which will enable people to jump to their death from this very bridge. Most of the reasons why people take their own lives is something that needs to be tacked at a national level and the links you provided demonstrate that help can be provided by individual groups but it doesn’t mean that local communities shouldn’t be doing something over and above that to try and put in place measures that they feel will be beneficial.

You obviously believe that the net is the only preventative measure that the community would have in place to try to stop people taking their lives when you don’t know if that is true. You dismissed the fact that the bridge authorities already have other measures in place which would fit in alongside having a net and it’s in the extract I gave you which you pretty much described as meaningless. They said that district patrol officers etc, already undertake suicide prevention measures – you just missed that in your silly attempt to try and make out that I had plagiarised it which just shows that you don’t even know the meaning of the word. You even came back on that with several links to articles which were not your work so you just did exactly the same thing, so learn from that and don’t make the same mistake again in future.

This bridge has a disgusting legacy in suicides and something needs to be done to stop it getting even worse. I hope as others have said that this is a good idea and a worthwhile project and it is finalised today and construction of the suicide prevention net receives its final approval

And this notion that you have that I waited until you logged off to make another post is just another example of this high opinion that you have of yourself. Forget it - you just ain’t that important.

Wow that shows you have not followed any of my points in that it has been human prevention that has stopped and helped many people where again a net will never hope to achieve or accomplish the same thing. In fact it is a belief based off human prevention where a falsehood is being made nets will achieve the same thing. Again I already advocated I would rather the money was spent on 24 hour patrols there and services to help vulnerable people, where as seen what will a net do but only deter people using that place. You then go on about just the bridge, what about the fact that there is nearly 30,000 suicide deaths per year the vast majority being by guns, next by suffocation hen poison, with jumping only a small fraction. That shows to me they are centering on one area an basing a view this will some how prevent people attempting to kill themselves. I see again no logic to that based again off how humans have prevented attempts, you take away the human prevention by installing the nets, thus what have you achieved? You take away the people who can coached people down from such attempts an then also help them afterwards.

Top me the policy is flawed and will only benefit those who suffer dealing with such tragedies or accidents themselves. Th reality is will it prevent suicides and on that the jury is still out, as to me clearly more needs to be done to help people in the first place not, which is where the money would be best directed, as seen we are talking about way more people, than those who attempt to use the bridge.

I have followed everything you have said and you haven't once contradicted any of the evidence that has been presented to you that the nets will save lives. You said that there are experts who say it won't so show me who these experts are. I just hope the are are suitably qualified as those that say it will save lives without a corresponding increase elsewhere.
Can you tell me who they are and what evidence they have.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Well that's it sassy...I said it earlier....if these measures save evn one life then they have to be worth it...

Unless some are putting the cost of safety features before lives.

How will you know it has saved any lives, if suicides increase by other means Joy?

Everyone has different preferences and fears Didge..

In other words, yes ..some may find alternative methods, but some of them won't follow through with those methods Didge, I know others will though.

I lost a very close relative to suicide in 2003, I don't often speak about it, he was one of those that was more or less fearless , but some are scared of the way the will go..gun shots sometimes end in one being paralysed , although usually it's a fairly reliable method...

I'm just saying that everyone is different, and no doubt some people will still head for the bridge, but because of safety measures, it will have them think more when they are on the bridge with safety measures anyway,,,and will give SOME a change of heart and a different perspective.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm back from my meeting. It's late for me.

Yes, Nems...that was quite a read. When I left it was page one. When I got back it had expanded to 4 nearly full pages.

So Didge: One of the things I learned in reading it over is how much people twist what you say. They start with a tweek, and end with a whole load of bullshit. What is more, they are arguing so hard that they convince themselves that's what happened. A kind of revolving 'reduction of cognitive dissonance.' For example, I never said I was for or against the suicide barrier, I merely pointed out that it altered the aerodynamics of the bridge so the proposal has been raised many times before and rejected. I wasn't even addressing the pending proposal...merely addressing one of the issues. Nonetheless, they are convinced that I was absolutely opposed to the idea.

Moving on, for the record it was sass who first mentioned me on the thread. Eight posts in, she wrote: "Thank goodness for that. Guess Quill didn't get his copy Wink"

**read as: nudge, nudge...quill join in here**

Totally gratuitous remark, not even in response to anything. But as you point out Didge (and Nems), the whole thread was a set up from the get-go. No one in a thousand years would think to write about the GGBHTD, were I not involved. It was a fishing hook, and sass and company were fishing. Sassy intended this thread as a troll, and I have no doubt she PM'ed Irn, LD, and JD and said 'get over here...we got a trolling set up for Quill.'

But I don't mind...the way to handle it is to be perfectly straightforward and truthful, and they will eventually find themselves up to their nose in the quicksand. Lol...I did, and they did.

You press some very good points, Didge, all of which have been urged to the Board and in the press many times over the past 20-25 years this has been an issue. LD narrows her focus to the history of suicides on the bridge, which ignores that the money could be better spent elsewhere in the world...a point you have made, but the obstinate few have refused to hear.

But this does bring up an interesting dynamic: the Board's motive is apparently not purely one of saving lives, but also of making sure it doesn't happen in our area of responsibility. This is sort of the Bridge version of the NIMBY sentiment (not in my back yard for those unfamiliar with planning debates). Like LD, the conservatives on the Bridge Board want to stick to the data about the Bridge, meaning by implication that they really don't care about suicides in general.

Fortunately, you and Harves have brought out the other view. It's unfortunate that more people haven't been as honest about why they are posting on this thread. But they are the one's who started the whole thread, and they never intended an honest discussion about suicide anyway. It is an informative topic that runs from statistics, to psychology, to engineering, to Coast Guard activities (they have a station just under the Bridge, at Ft. Baker, to pick up jumpers).

Did anyone actually claim you were against the barrier or are you just making that up?
You need to stop this because you're beginning to sound even more ridiculous. The thread didn't need to turn out this way but you made it so by dragging in other people suggesting they are part of a group out to get you. I'm not anyone's crony so cut out the nonsense and stop making out you are some sort of victim.

You are right the thread did not need to turn out this way, so why are you not asking why sassy was trying to goad him then?
She clearly did try to goad which shows to me this thread had little to do with suicides, she clearly had intent to try to shame Quill that is obvious an if you are going to be fair then why have you not exposed this point which you tried poorly to cover last night?

No-one tried to goad him. He just tried to rubbish the views posted by her that came from a source that is the very heart of the decision to be made today.
He got angry and he got abusive from that point on.
You just jumped in with your eyes closed.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:50 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wow that shows you have not followed any of my points in that it has been human prevention that has stopped and helped many people where again a net will never hope to achieve or accomplish the same thing. In fact it is a belief based off human prevention where a falsehood is being made nets will achieve the same thing. Again I already advocated I would rather the money was spent on 24 hour patrols there and services to help vulnerable people, where as seen what will a net do but only deter people using that place. You then go on about just the bridge, what about the fact that there is nearly 30,000 suicide deaths per year the vast majority being by guns, next by suffocation hen poison, with jumping only a small fraction. That shows to me they are centering on one area an basing a view this will some how prevent people attempting to kill themselves. I see again no logic to that based again off how humans have prevented attempts, you take away the human prevention by installing the nets, thus what have you achieved? You take away the people who can coached people down from such attempts an then also help them afterwards.

Top me the policy is flawed and will only benefit those who suffer dealing with such tragedies or accidents themselves. Th reality is will it prevent suicides and on that the jury is still out, as to me clearly more needs to be done to help people in the first place not, which is where the money would be best directed, as seen we are talking about way more people, than those who attempt to use the bridge.

I have followed everything you have said and you haven't once contradicted any of the evidence that has been presented to you that the nets will save lives. You said that there are experts who say it won't so show me who these experts are. I just hope the are are suitably qualified as those that say it will save lives without a corresponding increase elsewhere.
Can you tell me who they are and what evidence they have.

So all you can say and claim is that I have not contradicted anything, wow you sound like sassy now, you actually have to refute my points, am not interested that you disagree, as I know you disagree.
I have given you links already have I not which state some of the best ways to prevent suicide, of which some claim the best ways is to deal with helping the people themselves. If you want to argue over experts say, then clearly you have limited understanding yourself Irn, which I thought you did understand, clearly this does not seem to be the case.
It is up to you to refute my points

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:51 pm

@Quill...

Hey chief , your honestly even more paranoid than I thought....

Sassy has never PM'd me about you and neither has anyone Quill..I don't know what I can do to convince you I'm telling the truth, but your mind really is playing tricks on you.

Cheers, JD (Sassy Posse). Smile

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:51 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are right the thread did not need to turn out this way, so why are you not asking why sassy was trying to goad him then?
She clearly did try to goad which shows to me this thread had little to do with suicides, she clearly had intent to try to shame Quill that is obvious an if you are going to be fair then why have you not exposed this point which you tried poorly to cover last night?

No-one tried to goad him. He just tried to rubbish the views posted by her that came from a source that is the very heart of the decision to be made today.
He got angry and he got abusive from that point on.
You just jumped in with your eyes closed.

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:54 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are right the thread did not need to turn out this way, so why are you not asking why sassy was trying to goad him then?
She clearly did try to goad which shows to me this thread had little to do with suicides, she clearly had intent to try to shame Quill that is obvious an if you are going to be fair then why have you not exposed this point which you tried poorly to cover last night?

No-one tried to goad him. He just tried to rubbish the views posted by her that came from a source that is the very heart of the decision to be made today.
He got angry and he got abusive from that point on.
You just jumped in with your eyes closed.

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

It's not bullshit. He got angry and he got abusive and he dragged others into it - me included. He didn't need to do that and that is why this thread has widened into areas it didn't really need to.

Surely even you can see that.

Edit:

Just checked - he had posted on it.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:55 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No-one tried to goad him. He just tried to rubbish the views posted by her that came from a source that is the very heart of the decision to be made today.
He got angry and he got abusive from that point on.
You just jumped in with your eyes closed.

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

Didge, Quill seems to think there is some kind of conspiracy going on here and that Sassy has PM'd me, LD and Irn..do you also think that ?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:57 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

It's not bullshit. He got angry and he got abusive and he dragged others into it - me included. He didn't need to do that and that is why this thread has widened into areas it didn't really need to.

Surely even you can see that.

Of course it is bullshit, why mention Quill on a thread he was not even involved with yet, unless the intent was to goad?

Seriously Irn I respect you and your intelligence/knowledge but do not try to pull the wool over my eyes, that is silly and you know it!

She had no need to even mention him did she?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:58 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

Didge, Quill seems to think there is some kind of conspiracy going on here and that Sassy has PM'd me, LD and Irn..do you also think that ?

Well from experience and knowledge of former moderators on speakfree I know she has about me!

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:59 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bullshit, yes she did, as seen she made the first comment on a thread he had not posted on, that is goading, stop making utterly poor excuses for her

It's not bullshit. He got angry and he got abusive and he dragged others into it - me included. He didn't need to do that and that is why this thread has widened into areas it didn't really need to.

Surely even you can see that.

Of course it is bullshit, why mention Quill on a thread he was not even involved with yet, unless the intent was to goad?

Seriously Irn I respect you and your intelligence/knowledge but do not try to pull the wool over my eyes, that is silly and you know it!

She had no need to even mention him did she?

He was already involved in it. And why did he try to drag others into it with his ridiculous claims? More the reason why it has ended up the way it has.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:59 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

It's not bullshit. He got angry and he got abusive and he dragged others into it - me included. He didn't need to do that and that is why this thread has widened into areas it didn't really need to.

Surely even you can see that.

Of course it is bullshit, why mention Quill on a thread he was not even involved with yet, unless the intent was to goad?

Seriously Irn I respect you and your intelligence/knowledge but do not try to pull the wool over my eyes, that is silly and you know it!

She had no need to even mention him did she?

Why did Quill involve me when I wasn't even on the thread at the time then Didge?...

Only to claim I'm in on some kind of scheme with the Sassy Posse....

I really can't believe you can't see that Didge, I thought you had your eyes wide open, it's all in this thread ffs Didge!!!!!!

Look back.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:00 pm

Sassy wrote:Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of Directors amend the Bridge Division Capital Budget to include the Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge Physical Suicide Deterrent System Project (Project) in the amount of $76,000,000, with the nderstanding that the Project will be funded with $22,000,000 of federal Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds programmed by Caltrans, $27,000,000 of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds programmed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), $7,000,000 of California Mental Health Service Act Funds (Proposition 63), and $20,000,000 from District Reserves.

Thank goodness for that. Guess Quill didn't get his copy

Explain Irn how that is not goading?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:02 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Didge wrote:

Of course it is bullshit, why mention Quill on a thread he was not even involved with yet, unless the intent was to goad?

Seriously Irn I respect you and your intelligence/knowledge but do not try to pull the wool over my eyes, that is silly and you know it!

She had no need to even mention him did she?

Why did Quill involve me when I wasn't even on the thread at the time then Didge?...

Only to claim I'm in on some kind of scheme with the Sassy Posse....

I really can't believe you can't see that Didge, I thought you had your eyes wide open, it's all in this thread ffs Didge!!!!!!

Look back.

Behave Joy, I was not born yesterday though doubt you were involved, but please spare me the bull when as seen she is guiolty of doing this before, I know being the fact I was on the receiving end, she knows very little and seeks backup when debating because as seen she has to C&P every other post!

by Sponsored content