# Storm "responsible" for eleven deaths



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

OK kiddies hosting the news programs, the storm is NOT responsible for eleven deaths. People being STUPID and taking chances are responsible for their own deaths. I have never known of a storm coming in from the arctic or tropics and saying "Heh heh heh, I'm going to kill a dozen people!"

"Gravity kills seven sky divers!"

"Extreme water kills fourteen people on overcrowded boat with no life preservers!"

"Rock responsible for the death of teen who bashed head into it!"

How about some honesty in reporting - "Extreme stupidity kills ten during storm. One person dies from lack of transportation and immediate medical care."


----------



## bama (Aug 21, 2011)

That means people should take responsibility for their own actions. <gasp> surely you jest!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Even if common sense does not prevail, those who died, are still people who are loved, cherished, missed, mourned over.

Even if 'stupid' actions were a contributing factor in their deaths, they are still human beings, whom someone loved dearly, and is lost without.

If the TV / Internet arouses self righteousness, and drains a person of all basic human compassion, then those venues have accomplished their missions; 
To disconnect human beings.

Those people who have passed over, are missed, loved, important, they were mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, grama's and grandpa's, they were husbands, wives, pet owners, neighbors, parishioners.....
They were human beings.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm thinking of hurricanes Rita and Sandy and the people who died. Those storms were much worse than anyone was expecting and people had nothing to compare them to. People chose to stay where they were because they did not realize until too late how bad it actually was. Does this make them stupid, or human? Me, I lean towards human, humans that made a fatal error and paid the price.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

No one chooses to die in a storm.

Some make bad decision due to what they see as their circumstances.

Old people that cannot get out and may not have anyone to help them, or a tree that falls on a car.

Much of the post about people being Stupid is correct, but that is not the reason for all deaths in storms. There are some that are just accidents.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

And sometimes you do not have the luxury of staying put. Police, fire, paramedics, doctors, nurses, etc are called on to ignore their instincts of self preservation to be there to care for others. 
A person who gets hit by a tree falling on their house wasn't being stupid either.

I can remember traveling through an ice storm to show up for a job interview. I was young and willing to take the risk to get an especially good job when I needed one. I might not have gone if I had been older and wiser and more secure financially but I got the job in a job market where a hundred people showed up for each opening because the only people who managed to get there were me and the guy who was hiring. He took the risk not to disappoint the people wanting that job and he was impressed that I was there too.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"If the TV / Internet arouses self righteousness, and drains a person of all basic human compassion, then those venues have accomplished their missions; 
To disconnect human beings."

Compassion takes many forms. The slap on a hand of a child about to touch a stove burner is compassionate. Using examples of bad decision-making and exposing that element of non-thinking is compassion - not for the person deceased, but for those who can learn from the report.

I have no problem recognizing when I do stupid things. If there is a line to kick me when I'm stupid, I am at the forefront, and I'll be at the end continuing to do so long after everyone else has gone home. I learn from those moments. Over the years, my bucket of tolerance for others who do stupid things _repeatedly_ is getting towards empty. In business, I've seen how such actions affect other innocent people. On the roads, I've seen how innocent people get killed or injured. 

Am I going to show compassion for an idiot who goes "Ayyup, ayyup, I think I'll just go out on the icy roads and have a look around and go to the store for some beer"? Why yes I am. A compassionate thing I can do while still allowing their free will is to say to the person: "Here's your stupid hat. Stay warm and try not to kill anyone else when you run off the road."

I think that you make an error in mixing emotion and actions. When a person makes a fatal stupid mistake, that action is still stupid, still fatal. It has little or nothing to do with how the person lived the rest of their life. Hamilton got into a stupid duel. He died of his own stupidity. It didn't affect how he had set up the finances in the U.S. Tycho Brahe died of a burst bladder because he refused to excuse himself at a banquet. He died of stupidity and vanity even while he was a brilliant astronomer. I refuse to show compassion for stupid acts. Stupidity kills. I know how to separate compassion for a person while condemning their actions.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

And sometimes you do not have the luxury of staying put. Police, fire, paramedics, doctors, nurses, etc are called on to ignore their instincts of self preservation to be there to care for others. 

Note that I allowed for one death out of eleven to be a death not caused by stupidity. My point was that the MAJORITY of deaths in these situations are from stupidity. If you want to defend the deaths of those caregivers as not being from their OWN stupidity, I'll agree to that. However... if you are a newscaster wanting to claim deaths caused by a storm instead of stupidity, then the event the paramedics, etc. are responding to when killed had better not be to rescue someone who has been stupid.


A person who gets hit by a tree falling on their house wasn't being stupid either.

As someone who looked around for potential problems and removed trees around my house in Florida before a hurricane, and sited our current place where that won't happen, I question that.

I can remember traveling through an ice storm to show up for a job interview. I was young and willing to take the risk to get an especially good job when I needed one. I might not have gone if I had been older and wiser and more secure financially but I got the job in a job market where a hundred people showed up for each opening because the only people who managed to get there were me and the guy who was hiring. He took the risk not to disappoint the people wanting that job and he was impressed that I was there too.

Are you trying to justify a stupid move you once made? I'm a little confused - you talk about being older and wiser and then suggest that what you did was impressive.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

It's nice to meet you, Harry. I've never met anyone before who has never done anything stupid in their entire life.

I do something stupid at least twice a day and it's only the grace of God that keeps me from being killed or maimed. I'm glad I don't make it through my day thinking, "Whew, I'm so smart I managed to avoid being killed today." If I thought that was entirely in my control then I'd never get a moment's sleep worrying about tomorrow.

My guardian angel always looks like this:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Harry Chickpea said:


> Are you trying to justify a stupid move you once made? I'm a little confused - you talk about being older and wiser and then suggest that what you did was impressive.



After you edited out the financially secure part and created the impressive part. 
I still don't think I was stupid and yes, looking back, I find that eager young person endearing. I simply made a choice based on my best knowledge at the time. I was not joy riding and- tah tah- I did not die. Maybe I would not make that choice today because life has given me examples of my own fragility. And my need is less. But maybe that is more like cowardice than wisdom. Age does not create intelligence, just experience.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Ernie: "It's nice to meet you, Harry. I've never met anyone before who has never done anything stupid in their entire life."

Post #7 paragraph 3:
I have no problem recognizing when I do stupid things. If there is a line to kick me when I'm stupid, I am at the forefront, and I'll be at the end continuing to do so long after everyone else has gone home. I learn from those moments.

Ernie, I really mean what I said there. I have stuff I did in high school that I am STILL kicking myself over, and that is longer than many on the forum have been alive. If I were to get myself killed while doing a stupid stunt, I would want people to recognize it was a stupid stunt.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

We take a chance when we crawl out of bed every morning. Some chances pay off and some don't. And for everyone who did something "stupid" and wound up dead, there were 20 more lucky ones who just wound up in the ditch.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

In America, it is generally considered rude and hurtful to speak ill of the recently dead, especially when their graves have barely been dug. The wounds are too fresh among the living they have left behind; rubbing salt in them does no good for anyone.

In my area, for example, it does no good and possibly a lot of harm to tell the elderly widow that her only grandson's recent death on his motorcycle was his own, stupid fault. It would be less compassionate to do so before he had even been buried. Oh, sure, we all know that he was a drunk who refused to wear a helmet and who usually rode way to fast on all these hairpin curves. But it does absolutely no good to point that out to her as she is grieving her recent loss. It is cruelty for the sake of scoring a few nods of agreement from the peanut gallery. We don't start griping when the local news reports that the man was killed in a motorcycle _accident_.

This is not an issue of being right, but an issue of showing a little restraint and some compassion. These truths can be spoken, but at a later date, and even then only if there is a greater good to be gained (a cautionary tale to keep some other new rider from attempting the same abuses of the laws of physics and nature). Bashing the dead is an easy, but heartless sport. And usually reveals as much about the person doing the bashing as the one getting bashed.


----------



## Maura (Jun 6, 2004)

Those people in New Orleans during Katrina who had no transportation. There were buses waiting for the order from the mayor to go out and pick them up. Waiting. Aids reminding the mayor that he needed to give the order to send the buses out. Mayor at party, drinking. Mayor did not give the order to send the buses out until the water was too deep for the buses. No buses sent out to people whose lives depended on the buses.

Brushed under the rug: Mayor of New Orleans at party while citizens waited.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

ovsfarm said:


> In America, it is generally considered rude and hurtful to speak ill of the recently dead, especially when their graves have barely been dug. The wounds are too fresh among the living they have left behind; rubbing salt in them does no good for anyone.
> 
> In my area, for example, it does no good and possibly a lot of harm to tell the elderly widow that her only grandson's recent death on his motorcycle was his own, stupid fault. It would be less compassionate to do so before he had even been buried. Oh, sure, we all know that he was a drunk who refused to wear a helmet and who usually rode way to fast on all these hairpin curves. But it does absolutely no good to point that out to her as she is grieving her recent loss. It is cruelty for the sake of scoring a few nods of agreement from the peanut gallery. We don't start griping when the local news reports that the man was killed in a motorcycle _accident_.
> 
> This is not an issue of being right, but an issue of showing a little restraint and some compassion. These truths can be spoken, but at a later date, and even then only if there is a greater good to be gained (a cautionary tale to keep some other new rider from attempting the same abuses of the laws of physics and nature). Bashing the dead is an easy, but heartless sport. And usually reveals as much about the person doing the bashing as the one getting bashed.



You aren't going to like my response.

So, to paraphrase what you just said, drunks with no helmets have "accidents" (which implies no fault of their own) and it is cruelty to point out that being drunk and helmetless is not the smartest thing to do, and to point it out at a time close to the point of impact, when it might have the most teaching value is especially bad. That shows that the person trying to teach is the one with no values. 

I think I have it now. No one ever has any responsibility whatsoever for their own death, they are always the victim of a storm, another driver, a rock, or some outside evil power (especially in the presence of those grieving or who might get offended by reality). To suggest anything other than non-responsibility for actions at ANY time is heartless. In the interest of social graces, that is what you just said.

Compassion and empathy, especially around the dead and grieving, seems to be an area of conversation around here where no one can do ANYTHING correctly. I read (with some amazement) through a couple of threads recently where every single thing someone might say to a grieving person was put down, stomped upon, and then spat upon. I found it most elucidating. At the end of one of one of the threads, the only logical conclusion (if you followed the logic of all the posters as being accurate) was to either leave the vicinity of the dead person and grieving friends with no forwarding address or kill yourself to avoid a faux-pas and hurt the sensibilities of the person dealing with death. There was no acceptable thing to do or say that was agreed upon by all.

Death is a natural part of life. Everyone does it. It isn't all of life. It is possible to waste entire lives focusing on a single life event that consumes only a tiny percentage of the experience of being alive. If you have a fear of death, if you don't trust your own values, you may have difficulties with the subject. 

Am I going to tell a grandmother at a funeral that her son was a drunk not wearing a helmet? Of course not. Am I going to angst over saying that not wearing a helmet and being drunk and dying because of it is stupid? Not for a second. When the emperor has no clothes, the spectator that perpetrates the fraud has abdicated any moral responsibility in the face of social pressure.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

No, Harry, you missed most of my point. 

I am all for taking personal responsibility. According to my 15yo, I am a broken record about it. I am not afraid of death and I do trust my own values. Basically, I agree with a lot of what you said about many of the deaths being a natural consequence of bad decisions. I do think we can use the facts of what has happened to others to educate people. At the proper time, in the proper place. 

However, my point is that it is unkind and unhelpful to call the deceased stupid at this point. Privately now, or publicly later on, it is okay to be more open about what happened. (Although I don't think it is okay to be rude about it even then.) But now is not the time. I do not believe any good is served by publicly ridiculing those that have died. I am not suggesting we hide anything about the emperor's clothing, but when his widow and children are crying as they are digging his grave, do you really think now is the time to publicly call him stupid?

My choice to hold my tongue at this time and refrain from publicly pointing out the emperor's flaws or poor choices does not equate to my abdicating my moral responsibilities. I have already discussed the storm related deaths privately with members of my family. I feel no social pressure to hold my public comments. However, I do feel led to do so in the interest of compassion. 

We can become a blunt, truthful society that cares little for who we hurt with our opinions. Or we can make the choice to avoid hurting others unnecessarily. Restraint does not equal abdication nor repression.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

ovsfarm, we are coming from two different points of view. The pragmatic masculin sees things how they are and searches for what they could be in a better world. The pragmatic fem sees things as they are and tries to put them in a light where people are comfortable with what exists and want to carry on. Both are valid, both are needed, but there is inevitable tension between those two points of view.

My original point is that the media is excusing and deflecting reality by claiming non-sentient storms have "responsibility" for their actions. A storm is a storm, and when a death occurs, it is an extremely rare instance when human error or over-extension doesn't play a major or complete part in that death. The storm simply "is."

The shifting of blame that humans do seems to be happening more and more often in the past twenty years, and well understood natural forces or other secondary factors vilified in the gloss of the media. If a newscaster wants to say that eleven people died in a storm, and leave out that ten of them died of their own miscalculations and errors so as not to offend sensibilities, I have no problem with that. However, to say deliberately that the storm is _responsible_ for those deaths, when the newscaster primarily has the intent of dramatizing his report and increasing ratings, that shows a lack of understanding of the word responsible as well as a lack of personal responsibility in journalism.

When there is way too much mamby pamby handling of subjects in what passes for the news these days, I am very likely to balance that with a hard and even crude recognition of reality. It can be what is needed to eventually reach that middle ground. I understand that people may not like the shock, but that shock wouldn't be there if news was more factual and less fluff.

Edit to add: If you look at media response to storms, there is almost a reversion to viewing them as a pantheon of gods. Hurricanes are named with human names (Andrew, etc.), the weather channel now is expanding the naming, and there is an increase of citing the "responsibility" of storms. It is no longer a stretch to envision this continuing into them reporting on the god of the north wind, and so on. If they do so, I claim that the proper names of the four wind gods are Larry, Moe, Curly, and Marvin.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

Ernie said:


> It's nice to meet you, Harry. I've never met anyone before who has never done anything stupid in their entire life.
> 
> I do something stupid at least twice a day and it's only the grace of God that keeps me from being killed or maimed. I'm glad I don't make it through my day thinking, "Whew, I'm so smart I managed to avoid being killed today." If I thought that was entirely in my control then I'd never get a moment's sleep worrying about tomorrow.
> 
> My guardian angel always looks like this:


My gaurdian angel doesn't dare cover an eye for even one second.


----------



## Marilyn (Aug 2, 2006)

Agreed. Completely.

All the reporter had to do was avoid blaming the storm. What an amazing public service he/she would have provided, had he just reminded his viewers to hold themselves accountable for their own safety by seeing that they had adequate supplies in their homes before the storm was expected, driving appropriately if necessary, having salt/sand/kitty litter/shovel/blankets/water in the vehicle, clearing the windows, hood, trunk of vehicle before driving, making sure that there was an adequate supply of heating fuel for the home, making sure the furnace/woodstove, etc. were clean and in good working order, making sure that your family has warm coats/hats/gloves/boots, making sure that there is palatable food available for your family, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, be responsible.


----------



## kimmom2five (Apr 19, 2009)

In my area the three people who died were a salt truck driver and two men having heart attacks while shoveling snow. The truck driver was killed while adjusting something on the back of his truck when he was hit by another salt ruck. So basically all three men died for being responsible. Are they worthy of your compassion and self righteousness?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

kimmom2five said:


> In my area the three people who died were a salt truck driver and two men having heart attacks while shoveling snow. The truck driver was killed while adjusting something on the back of his truck when he was hit by another salt ruck. So basically all three men died for being responsible. Are they worthy of your compassion and self righteousness?


Like others, you are confusing compassion, and not understanding the whole concept of self-righteousness. Someone who is self-righteous claims to be "Piously sure of one's own righteousness." I claim nothing along those lines. I have in fact said that I would WANT people to know if I died from a stupid antic. I hold myself to the same standard of examination that I hold others. I recognize that other people think and do differently.

All three men had free will. They were NOT killed by the storm, by your own definition. Two died of heart attacks, probably from over-exertion. One died in a vehicular accident.

If I had a known heart condition, I would be prudent about over-exertion. I would consider myself stupid if I wasn't. If I didn't know about a heart condition and died of a heart attack - I would die of a HEART ATTACK, not of a snowstorm. (Coroner report: Mr. Jones died of a massive snowstorm.)

The primary issue is that the media is using false causal linking in reporting. That is a form of lying. My use of the word "stupid" in relationship with deaths was intentional because it is a "hot" word that would provoke people to think - and - be more careful themselves. 

You say that "all three men died for being responsible." There is a certain amount of self-righteousness in that statement, as you are placing your own moral judgment on their activities. I will agree that they MAY have felt that they were being responsible, but that is subjective and not objective.

I rarely quote Ayn Rand, but she does have one core statement that is difficult to dispute. "A person cannot be responsible to or for others unless the person is first responsible to himself." A husband might feel he is being responsible by giving up his life to prevent his wife from an injury, but that is the last responsible act he will perform. If instead he determines that she might only have a broken leg in a worst case scenario, and that is not worth giving up his life for, that is a greater sense of responsibility. (I use the example as a clarification outside of this context).

Is a man who has a known heart condition being responsible when he goes outside and over-exerts? You know the answer as well as I do. Again, SUBJECTIVELY he might FEEL he is being responsible, but he in fact not. If he were to simply wait a few days, that snow might even be gone all on its own. He died from a heart attack caused by over-exertion caused by his intervening in nature.

The man on the salt truck was likely being paid to do a job (again, free will), with his death caused through actions started by a co-worker. He did not die of massive salt poisoning, much less thousands of tiny snowflakes pummeling him to death. He died in an industrial accident.

To repeat - blaming the storm for deaths is a perversion of the word blame, an inaccuracy, and serves to dismiss the real causes of death.

You ask "are the men worthy of my compassion?" They were men. They lived. They died. The idea that my compassion is somehow valuable to them is silly. What you are really asking is for me to conform to a social norm of expressing a socially acceptable common response in response to death. My guess is that you really don't care whether or not I have compassion, but are more interested in trying to enforce that social norm so that you can be comfortable.

If I told you that one of the men was a wife beater, another a child-molester, and the third a murderer, would you expect me to express compassion because they died during a snow event? I do not know these men. I regret any death that has no meaning and is untimely. The person who experienced it has an ultimate loss and there may be others affected by that loss. I regret that they have to go through that experience. If it happens to someone I know or have some history with, my feelings may be more intense and involve other factors. Otherwise death is an event. I tend to view events (especially ones with some distance) dispassionately and examine them for what I might learn, rather than become enmeshed in emotion for the sake of social confluence.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You're going through an enormous amount of justification to try and excuse the fact that your OP was rude and insensitive.

The world is full of truths we don't say, and we don't need to say. Walking away from them is not being "politically correct". It's being normal.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

People die everyday, how many would have died if there were no storm.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Ernie said:


> You're going through an enormous amount of justification to try and excuse the fact that your OP was rude and insensitive.
> 
> The world is full of truths we don't say, and we don't need to say. Walking away from them is not being "politically correct". It's being normal.


Horse Hockey. :hysterical:

If you want to say that I am not the "normal" passive groupie, I'll agree with that. Lies and a culture of endorsed lies are what really constitute rude and insensitive. Ultimately those lies are anti-human because they delay and limit people learning reality. I can think of a few businesses I would have avoided had someone been "rude" enough to tell me the truth about.

The world is full of truths that many people know and don't say - for their own personal gain, for fear of being ostracized from their social group, and from fear of admitting the truth to themselves. It maybe "normal," but cannibalism is also very "normal" in some cultures. 

In a culture where no one dares to say the truth, liars prevail.

If you are not ready to admit that the western concept of "Santa Claus" is not a real person, if you are not willing to admit that every mother is not a saint and every father a beneficent godhead, that not every death is meaningful or purposeful, that is your personal problem, not mine. If you can't admit that sometimes cultures put up ideas that claim to be "normal" that are less "normal" than simply accepted within the group, then you are placing the ring in your own nose, to be led around with the group by those who know how to manipulate.

Rude and insensitive? To whom? Newscasters? People who intentionally put themselves at risk and had a logical consequence? Or your sensibilities?

Perhaps it was rude and insensitive for some of those people to not think of their loved ones or families before putting themselves at risk. Perhaps it was rude and insensitive of some businesses to put employees and customers at risk. Enjoy your railing at me. Hold me as rude if you wish. Just please also spend some time thinking.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I took the OP as a slam against the media, not the dead...I overlooked that aspect. It annoys me that the media likes to inflate the death count by including every death they can find that even remotely might be related to the storm. They don't care about the dead...it's all just hype fuel for them.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> I took the OP as a slam against the media, not the dead...I overlooked that aspect. It annoys me that the media likes to inflate the death count by including every death they can find that even remotely might be related to the storm. They don't care about the dead...it's all just hype fuel for them.


I would have perhaps taken it as such too, had he not decided to include this phrase:

"Extreme stupidity kills ten during storm."


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hey guys - lets torque it back some.

Harry - your presentation is not serving your message very well. It is making you come off not very good. You're having to spend too much time defining it. 

Yes, news people do accent on it too much. Maybe they should show more how prepared people didn't need help.

If you noticed, this time around the news in N. AL where we are, did mention that people learned from B'ham and we did not have nearly the problems that happened down there.

So, there is good to see when people have learned from other's mistakes. What do you think about that reporting?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Angie, by now you know that I don't care how I "look" as long as the message gets across. Bsides, I was obviously "rude" to the weather and rocks and water as well, and I am expecting them to come after me next. 

I was watching local news feeds from Chattanooga, Atlanta, Birmingham, Huntsville, Pennsylvania and Vermont. There were a few gaffs, but overall the local news came across _much_ better than the national news on NBC and CBS. 

One thing I noticed was that almost all the stations attempted balance by showing segments of kids having fun and not taking the storm as a complete evil demon. One segment of a young girl in Birmingham using a tupperware container to make blocks for an igloo was especially neat, making me think "Why didn't I ever think of that?"

The local stations also took time to list supplies and do the usual overprotective hen reporting. I find it annoying and repetitive for myself, but it does serve more purpose than Cantori donning an LL Bean and getting face pelts of snow or rain. 

"Maybe they should show more how prepared people didn't need help." +++ Exactly. Reflecting, it was the egregious national reporting that was compounding to make me reach the point of "Enough!," not the locals. 

The FCC has to renew station licenses and insure that the public is being served by each local station. To that effect, people are encouraged to report how a tv station is doing. Once it gets to the network level, that feedback isn't there. One can complain to the FCC, but with little effect, since a transmitter license is not on the line.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Ernie said:


> I would have perhaps taken it as such too, had he not decided to include this phrase:
> 
> "Extreme stupidity kills ten during storm."


I glossed over that part because the media hype is one of my biggest pet peeves...interesting the way this affects people, though. As you are one of the more "blunt" posters, I am a little surprised at your take on the whole thing. I agree with you (and everyone else) saying we shouldn't speak ill of the dead, though. I just wanted to clarify why I "liked" the OP.


----------



## sdnapier (Aug 13, 2010)

Ernie said:


> It's nice to meet you, Harry. I've never met anyone before who has never done anything stupid in their entire life.
> 
> I do something stupid at least twice a day and it's only the grace of God that keeps me from being killed or maimed. I'm glad I don't make it through my day thinking, "Whew, I'm so smart I managed to avoid being killed today." If I thought that was entirely in my control then I'd never get a moment's sleep worrying about tomorrow.
> 
> My guardian angel always looks like this:


I love your guardian angel, Ernie. A friend of mine gave me a mug that says: I see the screw up fairy has been here again. My life...sigh


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It is my understanding that storms of that magnitude are fairly uncommon. It's common for people who encounter severe weather to develop a healthy respect for it but when it is unusual, there is less fundamental knowledge to draw from. 

I'm perfectly capable of surviving a good old Alberta blizzard but if I had to deal with an American tornado, somebody would likely be calling me stupid.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

wr said:


> It is my understanding that storms of that magnitude are fairly uncommon. It's common for people who encounter severe weather to develop a healthy respect for it but when it is unusual, there is less fundamental knowledge to draw from.
> 
> I'm perfectly capable of surviving a good old Alberta blizzard but if I had to deal with an American tornado, somebody would likely be calling me stupid.


Nope just get in your bunker and don't stick your head out till it goes by . :bow: Now if you want to play storm chaser tell your kin not to whine it it catches you :hobbyhors


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Here in West Texas, our weather disasters are much slower moving and kill you over a period of 7 years.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Here in West Texas, our weather disasters are much slower moving and kill you over a period of 7 years.


Seams then a smart fellow would find a different place about six years eleven months out .Only a slow learner or stupid person would stay till the very last day :help::hysterical:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Seams then a smart fellow would find a different place about six years eleven months out .Only a slow learner or stupid person would stay till the very last day :help::hysterical:


Heh. That label fits me pretty well. I'm both stupid AND a slow learner. 

But I suspect that we'll still be finding water and drinking from the creeks and ponds longer after everyone else out here has packed up and gone or turned into bleached bones drying in the Texas sun.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

How is ANYTHING the OP said insensitive or ill-timed unless someone on THIS FORUM was somehow directly connected to the deceased that were mentioned?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

As I understood the OP, there was no mean spirited reflection on any individual, but an understandable aggravation with the newscaster's reporting. If the reporter broke down the deaths to: 4 from driving on icy roads, 3 from shoveling wet snow, and 3 hypothermia it would have been considerably more instructive and cautionary than attributing ethereal qualities to the weather.

When I hear someone report on the number of "gun deaths" I know they either are agenda driven or don't realize inanimate objects are incapable of independent action. In either case they deserve no respect.

As with funerals, compassion is for the living, not the dead.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Vash, you are correct. I picked the number eleven off a newscast, put a _random_ breakout of how many _MIGHT_ be more the fault of the people rather than anything really connected with the event, and tossed that out. It suddenly became a Rorschach test. 

I really do not get offended by people challenging me or calling me whatever they want. Sometimes that is needed to express what is troubling. They don't know the real me any more than I know the anonymous eleven that were reported dead by the news media. I was driving home a concept and a warning. If that got done, it works for me.

For those of you who might think you know me, perhaps my DW might comment sometime on how she was raising Monarch chrysalis and had an instar come out with a broken wing. She was amazed at how I used super-glue and a sliver of balsa to repair the wing so it could fly off and be a viable butterfly. (It was a tricky thing to do, I must admit.) The perceptions of any individual are THEIR personal perceptions, owned entirely by the person. 

Ozarks Tom has obviously understood the concept, likely from before I even brought it up. People who take media words at face value are manipulated. That manipulation may be ok on a small scale in the public interest, but when it starts to impinge upon rights, personal responsibility, and the common sense that previous generations had, it becomes something much darker and socially irresponsible.


----------



## Mutti (Sep 7, 2002)

Those who listen only to major newscasts will only hear twaddle. Snow comes down. Not much you can do. It is winter. They must have to really practice this winter acting amazed at winter and its rages...................I am much more interested in the Great Lakes being almost totally frozen over.


----------

