SeaRiggs,

Thank you for your comments. I am the person who originally started the question if Andrews was as "guilty" as Ismay.

The reason I started it, is that I feel that film and popular culture have stigmatized some of Titanic's passengers to the extream ends of the spectrum, ie- Ismay is a coward, and Andrews was a total hero.

Well, as you stated, Andrews did want four more boats. However, Alexander Carlisle, who was first in command of Titanic's constuction, wanted almost double the amount of boats, because he did realize that the boad of trade laws were out of date.

When White Star protested this, Carlisle aparently left the project (I admit I do not know the specific reasons) and Andrews took over as head of construction.

And therefore, I was trying to argue that it was just as neglegent for Andrews to let the ship leave Belfast with that low number of boats, as it was for Ismay to urge (if he indeed ever did) Captain Smith to push Titanic's speed higher when he knew that there was ice fields ahead.

However, with all said (and like you stated), the mindset back then was that Titanic was the ultimate technology that could beat nature.

Andrews being a person who knew Titanic's physical limits in regards to design, might have viewed 20 boats as a well guarded calculated risk to "acomidate the client" as Walter Lord once stated.

Furthermore, I have always asked, "how can Ismay be blamed for being what he was - a businessman? Why is he excluded from also possibly wanting to take a calculated risk? The ship was "practically unsinkable". Furthermore, he had no last say over the command of the ship at sea.

So, I have asked many people here, how can he be blaimed and Andrews exonerated if they took the same risk due to their beliefs?

In closing, Its hard for me to blame anyone, when it comes down to it.

Good comments by the way!