On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 15:45 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: > >> > > >> >A Typical response. everybody but you are politically biased and > >> >motivated. Glad to know that you never have any omissions .. wait you > >> >do ... > >> > >> > >> Of course I'm biased. I'm biased against the two-party cartel that is > >> thinly disguised as a democracy. I'm biased against the weakening > >> representation in the House (i.e, the "Second Senate"). I'm biased > >> against any polititian that opposes a constitutional amendment that > >> guarantees the right to vote, or works to prevent Americans from > >> having the opportunity to elect a third party or independent > >> candidate. IOW, I'm biased against -both- parties. So how does that > >> taint my perception that the aforementioned news agency has leanings > >> towards the Republican party? > > > >It is evident of your bias against information that does not agree with > >your beliefs. > > > How so?
The same way some no-name reporter throwing together a quick timeline in your opinion demonstrated his or her bias in your eyes. The politics here was solely in the eye of the beholder. Thus it demonstrates your bias against one party, not two. > >> > >> What part of "There sure are a lot of things missing out of that > >> timeline" didn't you understand? > > > >You made certain things missing a political issue as opposed to one of > >timely convenience. > > You made it a political issue. No, I posted it clearly as a "here is what I've found". To whit: "I did some digging into the progress of Katrina. Here is a link followed by a summary." That was me. Here was you: "There sure are a lot of things missing out of that timeline. For example, they neglect to mention that the governor of LA declared a SoE a full day before the governor of Mississippi declared the same. Looks like a politically biased timeline to me..... nothing new for FOX News." YOU made it a political claim/issue, nobody else. Now for "the killing blow". FOX didn't create it. Note the byline. It says: Saturday, September 03, 2005 Associated Press As I am sure Frank con confirm if we need it, that means it came from the AP, not FOX news Channel. Therefore, your entire claim it is a FOX news Channel politically motivated piece is ludicrous and laughable. > This raises questions > >about what you choose to leave out. > > > I didn't make the list. But I -did- point out that whoever made the > list made it a political issue. If you want to get into a shouting > match about who started it then contact FOX news. Nope, see above. Nobody here is shouting unless you are. I'm, laughing. Have been the whole time. I knew it was AP, not FNC when I posted it. Then you out of the blue decided to label it a FNC political thing. And FNC didn't even create it. Oh the irony. > >> That wasn't what I said, was it? You claimed that the "effect" of an > >> emergency declaration has "worn off", yet hundreds of thousands of > >> people -- the vast majority of the population -- evacuated the area. > > > >Which is not a contrary statement. Many people were evacuating prior to > >the requests for them to do so. > > > Yes they were. What's your point? The one clearly stated. That people can become desensitized to SoE, and that people can evacuate regardless of them. You said "nobody" shrugged them off, yet it is provable that some did. You did so yourself. Just because you label them stupid, does not mean they did not. The point was that one does not mandate the lack of the other. Your argument requires that people only left *because* of the the SoE -which does not mandate or require an evacuation. > >> So it's clear that your statement isn't quite accurate. And for you to > >> suggest that your statement is true because a few foolish people > >> willingly decided to ride out the storm is nonsense. > > > >A few? While in some contexts thousands or tens of thousands of people > >willingly decided to ride out the storm may classify as a few, in this > >case it is not a few as it is germane to the core of your assertions. > > > Again, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking: You missed the > qualifier "willingly". The fact is that most of the people who stayed > did so quite reluctantly, assuming they even had a choice. And I am saying that tens of thousands is not a "few" in the context used. > >> >For your failing memory two of the 2004 hurricanes were cat3, one cat2 > >> >and one cat1. People generally don't evacuate for cat1s or cat2s. They > >> >are minor hurricanes. > >> > >> > >> For -your- failing memory, Charley was a Cat 4 when it hit land. > > > >Not according to the NWS and Hurricane history site provided by it. > > > Post the link. It's on my laptop at work. Won't be back until Sunday. > > > >According to the National Hurricane Center, his winds had picked up to > >cat 4 intensity, but fell sharply 12 hours prior to landfall. > > > That's interesting -- the NHC seems to disagree with you: > > http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004charley.shtml? > > > >Tip: I don't rely on memory for these, but prefer to use reasonable > >sources, such as people who made it their ob to document these things. > >That said, it is conceivable that different agencies would revise their > >estimation of it's scale based on the varying criteria. > > > Disclaimer or not, your "sources" are wrong. Then to paraphrase you, go yell at them. ;) > >> But > >> Frances and Ivan were just as devastating -- if not more so -- because > >> of their rapid succession in the wake of Charley. 2004 was one of the > >> most expensive and deadliest hurricane seasons in many years. > > > >Cost is an inaccurate measure of devastation. > > > That's about the most profoundly ridiculous statement I've heard in > quite a while. Cost is one of the -few- ways that damage -can- be > measured! Not really. Quick, which caused more devastation a 5 billion dollar hurricane in 1970 or a 7 billion dollar one today? Two areas are hit by the same hurricane. Both are flattened. One will cost 500 million to rebuild, the other 100 million. Which area had the worst devastation? Answer the 500 million because it had more cost associated with it is folly. The area I have in mind is a rich beach versus a low income housing project. In the former case, the projects are likely to have more lives lost, more people displaced, and of those displace they are less likely to have other homes and financial assets to fall back upon. Lives lost, people displaced, and what was lost are the primary useful terms for determining the extent of devastation. I've seen disaster cost studies. Often a significant portion of them are base don lost work/productivity and what is called the "short term disaster property loss". In the latter, that is the effect of the "value" of the land going down due to demand for that land suddenly dropping. While in most cases it is not an intentional inflation, it does in fact inflate the cost. > >Ivan did in fact strike Louisiana and Texas, causing "minimal damage", > >as it had weakened to a mere tropical storm. > > > That was the second landfall. The first landfall was at Gulf Shores, > Alabama as a Cat 3: > > http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml? And your point being? How does that counter or relate to the fact that it did hit LA and did "minimal damage"? > > Charley walked the eastern > >shore. > > > After striking the SouthWest coast of Florida and plowing through the > middle of the state. Again, and your point? > > >Your definition of rapid is quite broad it seems. Charley landed on > >Florida on August 13th and had dissipated by the 15th. Frances was born > >on August 24, then still a tropical depression. Frances did not land > >until September 5th, after sitting off Florida's coast for a day. Nearly > >a month between Charley and Frances. > > > >Ivan got his start as a tropical depression on September 2nd, not making > >landfall until September 16th, two weeks after Frances. While Frances > >and Ivan could be described as close, but not unusually so; to say that > >Frances and Ivan were a "rapid succession" of a month-prior hurricane is > >stretch at best. > > > Considering it took LA about 20 years to recover from Camille, four > hurricanes in a matter of weeks can indeed be considered "rapid > succession". Hardly. The two are not related. One massive hurricane taking some "20 years" to recover from has nothing to do with temporal locality of other hurricanes. > >> >> >Next, when the warning for N.O. was issued, she was a cat 3. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> She was a Cat 3 that had already suprised Florida resulting in 11 > >> >> deaths.... as a Cat 1! > >> > > >> >But I thought nobody shrugged off the declarations? How can people get > >> >killed if they didn't stay home? > >> > >> > >> It could have been worse. > > > >An irrelevance, herr professor. Indeed, it even appears to be a form of > >Fallacy of Exclusion. The fact is, it was not "worse". You are excluding > >the fact that Katrina was a minor hurricane with minimal devastation and > >destruction is ignored for your premise that it "could have been > >worse". > > > Hardly. Your armchair logic is faulty because you incorrectly assumed > my conclusion. I was saying that if more people had stayed there might > have been more people killed. Should I draw you a picture next time? And it might not have been. You have pre-concluded and are failing to provide positive assertion as to a) the relevance and b) support. > >You raised the 11 deaths in Florida (though so far media reports I've > >seen are only saying 9, I'll grant you 2 more) > > > My number could be wrong..... One death is a tragedy; many deaths are > a statistic. Agreed. I did see a report today (if you'll excuse FNC for agreeing with you ;) ) that has raised it to 11. Either way, you are right 9 or 11 is really not significant other than to those involved. > >The human entity has an incredible ability to adapt to overcome > >continuous low level harmful effects. From adapting to slightly elevated > >radiation levels to the mind learning to treat common serious threats as > >commonplace. > > > >If you are unfamiliar with this phenomena, you are currently > >deliberately so. Indeed, your own rendition of your driving experience > >shows that despite the risks, you a) consider them an acceptable trade > >compared the the option, and you have in become desensitized to some > >extent to the inherent risks associated with automobile transport. To > >conclude that storms are an exception to this standard human behaviour > >is to further exclude clear evidence of it. > > > Once again, you are jumping to conclusions. For example, -many- people > have died in their homes by falling trees. There was a family in MI > that rode out Katrina in a houseboat and survived (it was on 48 Hours > Monday night). And when I hit the road driving I get downright > paranoid. But you still, by your own admission, do it. That is the point. You make a value judgement and conclude that while risky, it is not worth it for you to avoid the situation. For you, driving and it's risks are a part of life. For a significant portion of those on the Hurricane Coast, hurricanes are a part of their life. I, clearly, am not in agreement with their assessment as I do not, and will not live there. I have made my value judgement. Texas is as close as I'd get (again). ;) At least they know how to prepare and handle these things. > Yes, people do become desensitized to certain things; but you haven't > proven -- or even offered circumstantial evidence -- to support your > claim that the majority of people who stayed to ride out Katrina did > so because they were 'desensitized'. Right, because I never made a claim that the majority of people who stayed did. I said specifically a significant portion. Again with the men of straw? Why? > Also, you have failed to > addressed the fact that the opposite also happens, that people get > "hyper-sensitized" to some things. It may very well be that if four > hurricanes -didn't- hit last year then the exodus from NO might have > started too late, or that warning may not have been heeded. And -that- > is an example of the Fallacy of Exclusion. No, it is irrelevant. That fact that people can become hyper sensitive has no bearing on the fact that they can become desensitized. How easy was that class? > So either draw some lines to connect your dots or move on. You can move on any time you like. > >> >Wait, wait here is how they played out as of the 28th: > >> >"Hurricane Katrina churned through the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, after > >> >cutting a swath through southern Florida and leaving seven people dead. > >> >Three people who died in the hurricane were crushed by falling trees. > >> >One man lost control of his car and rammed into a tree. Three others > >> >drowned, including two who tried to ride out the storm in a houseboat." > >> >-- NY Times > >> > > >> >So, of the 11 two were people trying to ride out the storm *IN A > >> >HOUSEBOAT*. If that ain't proof that people were not taking the warnings > >> >seriously, well I'm at a loss for words as to what would be. > >> > >> > >> According to former Governor Ventura, "People have the constitutional > >> right to be stupid". > > > >Again, irrelevant, herr professor. It is quite possible for intelligent > >people to conclude given what was known at the time that staying in the > >city and "riding the storm out" was a perfectly acceptable risk. Indeed > >many did precisely that. > > > Yet again, you haven't proven -why- they stayed. Nor have you. However, people who stay when they CAN leave, people who SAY they are choosing to stay are clearly choosing to stay. THat you need that pointed out is almost amusing. > >> >Of the others, three crushed by falling trees. Clearly they didn't > >> >leave. One lost control of his car. Honestly this may or may not be > >> >hurricane related we don't know for sure. > >> > > >> >Know who the first three deaths in Louisiana from Katrina were? Three > >> >elderly people who died during pre-approach evacuation. They died fo > >> >dehydration. > >> > >> > >> Belittling the casualties doesn't do much to validate your argument. > > > >And ad hominems does nothing to support yours. I merely pointed out the > >initial deaths and how they occurred. That you take that as belittling > >is an effect of your bias, not mine. > > > >I pointed out how these happened not to belittle, but to point out that > >your inferred solution was not without peril and risk of it's own. > >Evacuations are a risk as well. These deaths are and will remain > >attributed to Katrina, and will be included in the official death toll. > >However, it was the act of poor evacuation procedure and not the storm > >that resulted directly in these deaths. > > > Yes they were. What's your point? That they, and all the other people > that were evacuated with them, would have survived or been better off > if they had stayed? No, that there is risk involved in hasty evacuations. > Or are you suggesting that it's better -not- to > run from a Cat 5 storm because of the risk of casualties during an > evacuation? I hope not because that's a downright foolish argument. Actually, sometimes yes it is a risk to move patients. Just like it is sometimes a risk to move someone from a burning car. The move is likely to kill them depending on the injury. In some cases, yes staying is the least risky. > >> > >> That might be true if not for the fact that the Cat 4-5 prediction was > >> made just after it crossed into the gulf. So they actually had more > >> than 3 days to prepare. That's makes the timeline -longer-, not > >> shorter. And the timeline was even -longer- when you consider that > >> emergency plans could have been devised and refined years before this > >> storm even formed. That's the job of FEMA and DoHS. (If they aren't > >> doing their job then where is all that money going?) > > > >No, that is actually the job of the local government. > > > The local government works -with- FEMA and DoHS to develop these > plans: > > http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/default.htm > > And while you're at it, go ahead and google "Hurricane Pam". Right, as I sad they are a coordinating agency. It is still the job of the local governments to establish and implement their own plans. FEMA can (and did!) make recommendations. Whether the state/city/other does anything is not up to FEMA. And DoHS is about security not natural diaster. Unless you are talking about the Louisiana DoHS. > > > >> >> > A lot of > >> >> >people in that area have weathered those before. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Yep. Betsy in 1965, which left half the city flooded and 60,000 > >> >> homeless. > >> > > >> >And killed 78. What political bias led you leave that out? > >> > >> > >> You tell me. > > > >It's your bias. > > > Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I can see where this is > going...... What, I ask a question about something I don't have knowledge of, you tell me to answer it? Fine, I'll finish it here: "I know you are but what am I?". Better? > > > >> >> And, more recently, Andrew in 1992. But the history of > >> >> devastating hurricanes in that area goes back all the way to 1927. > >> > > >> >Ah an omission. Truth is they go back into the 1800's. > >> > > >> >A 1865 hurricane took out Dernier island....... > >> <snip for brevity> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for making my point. > > > >What that there was political bias in your timeline omissions? > > > No, that the area has a long history of devastating hurricanes. And I > omitted nothing from the timeline in the link that -you- provided. > Enough with the spin-and-twist. No, you ADDED to it claiming that the failure to include other things was/is a political decision. Then, when that standard was applied to you, you cried foul. > >> >> > Second, the evac > >> >> >recommendation was for those in low lying areas. Now, personally I > >> >> >consider the whole damned area low lying. However, the residents do > >> >> >not. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I suppose that's why hundreds of thousands of people heeded the > >> >> warnings and -did- evacuate, huh? > >> > > >> >They predominantly lived in the low lying areas. > >> > > >> >What about the tens of thousands who did not? What about the people > >> >being interviewed prior to landfall saying they were going to wait it > >> >out? Why do feel a need/desire to leave these people out of your > >> >considerations? > >> > >> > >> I don't. If people refuse to acknowledge dire circumstances that's > >> their problem. Much like you refuse to acknowledge that the warnings > >> did indeed have an effect, as the mass evacuation have proved. > > > >I didn't they say they had zero effect, just that they were losing their > >effect. Geez herr professor, Can't you build better strawmen than that? > > > Yeah, I think that's enough. I've proven my point when you refuse to > address the issues, deliberately provide false information, and resort > to namecalling and snide remarks. Yup, caught you in your game alright. Bragging about an alleged teaching og a logic class after a 4.0, called you on your fallacies, asked for you to provide your data, and you bail. Typical. > Honestly, I thought it would take > longer than this for you to break, but I guess I overestimated your > intelligence. My bad. The only thing you overestimated was your own. > > Bye-bye, Bill. > > =<plonk>= Yay! Now we can get back to talking about real things, not imagined ones! -- Random Fortune of the moment: George Orwell was an optimist. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
