Quote :

"Smoker4: The campaign comparison is particularly silly, I mean--what is the timeframe for a political campaign versus an incoming hurricane?"

What is your obsession with timeframes? The timeframe in the comparison is irrelevant -- the point is any crack-addicted teenager (much less dozens upon dozens (upon dozens) of municipal personnel) can put a list together in 10-15 minutes.

Jesse Jackson knew who to evacuate before the storm hit, why didn't the police or the Guard?

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: I strongly suspect the authorities were going to have a Hell of a time rolling people out in wheelchairs with their bedpans (although, again, I assume in your view that's just like running a simple political campaign). In general, with low-time, high-risk situations like this, I tend to think the simpler route is usually the more effective, because small errors usually cost a lot of time."

So the natural solution then is to just do nothing, since that's pretty much what a large chunk of municipal forces were doing the day before the hurricane. "Let's not try anything guys," I overheard Nagin saying at a press conference, "because Smoker4 says this is a low-time, high-risk situation and small errors might cost us a lot of time."

But the federal government on the other hand? hoo boy, they should have been out in force guns blazing before the hurricane even made landfall...

---

Quote :

"skokiaan: It is more useful to consider how the existing plans were inadequate and why parts of it failed"

Welcome to the thread, that's basically what's going on

pryderi: "The state and local governments were flawless. I blame Bush!"

TGD: "gtfo. They didn't even try to do everything they could and are equally to blame for the dead."

Smoker4: "Well technically he has a point if you consider the effectiveness of the simple routes in low-time, high-risk situations because ultimately the nursing homes are responsible for getting individuals out of individual homes and certainly the federal government is more to blame than anyone for not living up to its end of the bargain because Nagin only really had two choices and he picked the right one because inaction is OK when the only folks left are the stubborn and infirm and small errors usually cost a lot of time and all."


[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 6:27 AM. Reason : page 2]

9/12/2005 6:26:21 AM

Did you even read my post, or are you really THAT fucking obtuse?




Oh and just an FYI, I quit the soapbox years ago because of people like you - too absorbed in their own way of thinking to realize the basics of "right" and "wrong" when it comes to debate.



The point was made and supported early on in the thread. A proper evacuation was damn-near impossible. Everything you've said trying to negate that actuality has been completly fruitless and hasn't done anything but make you look like a blubbering idiot.







THEY COULD HAVE USED GPS UNITS!!!! IT'S SCIENCE!!!!


[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 7:48 AM. Reason : moron.]

9/12/2005 7:19:10 AM

Quote :

"kiljadn: Oh and just an FYI, I quit the soapbox years ago because of people like you - too absorbed in their own way of thinking to realize the basics of "right" and "wrong" when it comes to debate."

I sometimes wish I had gone premium, just so I could embed some audio like "Cry Me a River"...

P.S. Stick to Chit Chat

9/12/2005 8:09:02 AM

I love it when I completely demolish someone's arguement and they can't even come back with a valid reply.




I LOVE IT.







GPS UNITS







TOMORROW LAND IS HERE NOW

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2005 8:33:02 AM

Quote :

"^ Wait, so those pictures of flooded buses are faked? Or is everyone right when they say that after the first round of evacuations, the city parked the buses where they would flood, assuming they'd never need them again. "

Quote :

"Why? The water rose at a finite pace, they should have notice the water was rising and gotten the buses to safety because they were going to need them later."

Officials had to evacuate the city in 24 hours. I assume a "mandatory evacuation" means saving people, not buses.

9/12/2005 8:58:49 AM

Quote :

"Welcome to the thread, that's basically what's going on "

Actually, Smoker4 seems to be discussing what could have been reasonably done around the time of the hurricane, and you seem to be discussing what should have happened based on hindsight.

The only way the local and state gov would ever take your suggested course of action is if they believed beforehand that their emergency plans (ones that had been crafted over the years) would fail.

If we are talking about decisions made around the time of the storm, given the information that they had, the state and local govs probably acted appropriately. On a time scale of years, the state and local govs obviously should have gotten more competent emergency planners (maybe the governor and nagin only appointed their friends to all the emergency planning positions!).

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 9:57 AM. Reason : df]

9/12/2005 9:51:02 AM

^

Quote :

"skokiaan: The only way the local and state gov would ever take your suggested course of action is if they believed beforehand that their emergency plans (ones that had been crafted over the years) would fail."

The only way local and state government would have designed an actual mandatory evacuation (hence the phrase "mandatory") was if they believed their existing clearly-incomplete (e.g. not "mandatory") plans would fail?

Your argument makes no sense. If the municipal authorities had no game plan for a mandatory evacuation, then they've clearly fucked up far more than even Republicans are claiming. And if they did have a plan for a mandatory evacuation, don't you think they should have had a plan for making it "mandatory"?

---

Quote :

"kiljadn: I love it when I completely demolish someone's arguement and they can't even come back with a valid reply."

Your ego is almost as large as MathFreak's. It's cute.

You didn't demolish shit, especially since Smoker4 already beat you to the punch with the same "point" you made. Try reading the posts before commenting next time, or just take my advice and relocate yourself to Chit Chat. And never return

9/12/2005 10:16:48 AM

Quote :

"Your ego is almost as large as MathFreak's. It's cute."

LOL!!! I know. It's me who's been for centuries fighting monorail in Raleigh tooth and nail, and as a result has become the world's leading expert on majot city evacuations.

9/12/2005 10:31:37 AM

You didn't read my post at all.



You are that fucking obtuse.





I'm not the one with a huge ego here, either, sweetie.



You have not come up with one valid reply to anyone's posts here. Not mine, Not Smoker's, not even pryderi's by-damn.


Who needs to go to Chit Chat? All signs point to you, because it's quite apparent you don't know what the hell you're talking about here AT ALL.














IT'S SCIENCE FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!@#!







SCIENCE WILL SAVE US!@#!#!424

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2005 5:37:44 PM

Quote :

" The only way local and state government would have designed an actual mandatory evacuation (hence the phrase "mandatory") was if they believed their existing clearly-incomplete (e.g. not "mandatory") plans would fail? Your argument makes no sense. If the municipal authorities had no game plan for a mandatory evacuation, then they've clearly fucked up far more than even Republicans are claiming. And if they did have a plan for a mandatory evacuation, don't you think they should have had a plan for making it "mandatory"?"

Cute, but no. The local and state governments had plans for an evacuation that they believed would wok beforehand. They only realized that it had not worked when it was too late to do anything about it. Your suggestion that they could have done X is unreasonable because by the time they realized their original plans had failed, they could not have implemented X.

I am not disputing that the NO emergency plans failed because that much is obvious. What I am asserting, however, is that the state and local govs probably (from what we know so far) did the best they could when the actual action went down, given that they had set themselves up for failure long ago. This may be an unimportant point, but it's laughable to suggest that they could or would have changed their long-standing plans significantly on the fly.

(In fact, deciding to send everyone to the superdome and convention center was their backup plan and was probably the best alternative they had once they realized their first plans had failed. Unfortunately, the backup plan assumed that there would be timely support from the federal government. )

A similar argument can be made for how the federal government also failed. It appears that since FEMA was reorganized into the dept. of homeland security, the organization changed in such a way to make it much less effective that it had been previously.

9/12/2005 7:33:46 PM

Quote :

"What is your obsession with timeframes?"

Because I live and work in the real world, and I have a well-developed sense of respect for Murphy's Law. It's that simple. I know what it's like to manage risk on short timeframes, and I guarantee you, the stuff that you think takes 10-15 minutes, takes hours if not days in reality.

Your viewpoint is pure ivory tower, "action involves zero friction."

I personally think coming up with an ad hoc, last-minute plan to deploy thousands of municipal and National Guard troops in a door-to-door evacuation without any preparation entails a lot more than just "10-15 minutes" putting together a list. Maybe that's only obvious to me.

Quote :

"So the natural solution then is to just do nothing, since that's pretty much what a large chunk of municipal forces were doing the day before the hurricane. "Let's not try anything guys," I overheard Nagin saying at a press conference, "because Smoker4 says this is a low-time, high-risk situation and small errors might cost us a lot of time.""

... as you skip the entirety of my post where I laid out how I came to that conclusion, and fail to address any of the reasons I put forth ...

My point of view was simply that "one clear plan is better than one half-assed plan"--honestly, even if it involves people "doing nothing" (which I seriously doubt was the case--you think prepping the Superdome for the arrival of thousands entailed doing NOTHING?)

If you looked at the post I wrote: at the time, I believe it was a good decision _assuming the federal government was prepared to live up to their promises_ of a timely rescue.

Quote :

"Smoker4: "Well technically ..."

Do you have PMS or something?

9/12/2005 8:33:56 PM

I wonder how long it takes an army to move 100,000 troops.

9/12/2005 8:49:48 PM

Quote :

"If the municipal authorities had no game plan for a mandatory evacuation, then they've clearly fucked up far more than even Republicans are claiming"

According to the NYT, they had an incomplete plan for mandatory evacuation--basically everyone but the 100,000 who lacked a way to actually get out of the city.

The NYT also said they basically followed the plan point-for-point until ... it stopped. Then they were left "winging it" for the rest.

Kinda silly, eh? But it's typical city politics; they probably just let it slide for other "funding priorities." On the other hand, you have to wonder where the blame goes on that one--arguably Nagin should've fixed it all; but then again, why didn't the previous ten NO mayors get the damn thing done?

9/12/2005 9:07:20 PM

Quote :

"kiljadn: You have not come up with one valid reply to anyone's posts here."

b/c OMF kiljadn does not approve. how will I go on with my life?...

---

Quote :

"kiljadn: IT'S SCIENCE FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!@#! SCIENCE WILL SAVE US!@#!#!424"

Less "science", more "initiative". You know, the concept of doing things.

Like relocating to Chit Chat, for instance...

---

Quote :

"skokiaan: This may be an unimportant point, but it's laughable to suggest that they could or would have changed their long-standing plans significantly on the fly."

And tell me again where I argued for "changing long-standing plans significantly on the fly"?

Because before Smoker4 started this thread down the "time and coordination" argument here:

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=348727#7489154

the idea of "changing long-standing plans significantly on the fly" never got mentioned...

---

Quote :

"skokiaan: Unfortunately, the backup plan assumed that there would be timely support from the federal government."

Timely as in when? Because their "backup plan" as you call it (which bears no relation at all to any plan to make a "mandatory" evacuation actually mandatory) had clearly failed before the hurricane made landfall...since, you know, there were still supposedly tens of thousands of people there.

Unless you're one of the supporters of MathFreak's ingenious idea from the other thread, having FEMA personnel physically bracing the levees at 9:30am Friday morning right before they broke...

---

Quote :

"skokiaan: It appears that since FEMA was reorganized into the dept. of homeland security, the organization changed in such a way to make it much less effective that it had been previously."

And what are some examples of better FEMA response times?

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: Because I live and work in the real world, and I have a well-developed sense of respect for Murphy's Law. It's that simple. I know what it's like to manage risk on short timeframes, and I guarantee you, the stuff that you think takes 10-15 minutes, takes hours if not days in reality."

Because your profession is right up there with emergency services when it comes to "managing risks on short timeframes"?

Regardless, if nothing else (again): it's what they're doing now, and have been doing with the forces they had on-hand since the winds died down a week ago -- with the same amount of time for preparation, plus the added logistical problems of dealing with the cascades of mess caused by the hurricane (like, say, flooding and so on).

Your argument is essentially that the stress of merely knowing a hurricane is days away adds such huge swaths of time and complication via Murphy's Law that they can't possibly follow the same process they can do after everything is destroyed in the same timeframe.

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: My point of view was simply that "one clear plan is better than one half-assed plan"--honestly, even if it involves people "doing nothing" (which I seriously doubt was the case--you think prepping the Superdome for the arrival of thousands entailed doing NOTHING?)"

You think prepping the Superdome for the arrival of thousands entailed using every single person that worked for the government?

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: Do you have PMS or something?"

[cute], remind me to keep that line bookmarked somewhere next time you decide not to bow out of a debate

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ---]

9/12/2005 10:13:52 PM

ITS NOT A DEBATE



YOU ARE GETTING REPEATEDLY SHOWN UP




STOP FUCKING TALKING

9/12/2005 10:21:08 PM

Quote :

"kiljadn: YOU ARE GETTING REPEATEDLY SHOWN UP"

Quote :

"TGD: b/c OMF kiljadn does not approve. how will I go on with my life?... "

9/12/2005 10:28:04 PM

TGD: I just keep on debating until everyone is tired of my brickwalling.

9/12/2005 10:55:38 PM

Quote :

"Because your profession is right up there with emergency services when it comes to "managing risks on short timeframes"?"

No--but if you think about it, that should be a hint that if it's hard in my profession, then emergency services is probably an order of magnitude (or three) worse.

Quote :

"Your argument is essentially that the stress of merely knowing a hurricane is days away adds such huge swaths of time and complication via Murphy's Law that they can't possibly follow the same process they can do after everything is destroyed in the same timeframe."

It's not just pressure, it's also the preparation involved. It'd be one thing if they had a plan for undertaking the action you're describing; but as the NYT noted, they simply didn't.

Or is your argument that detailed plans basically mean nothing, and all emergency management can be done ad hoc?

Quote :

"You think prepping the Superdome for the arrival of thousands entailed using every single person that worked for the government?"

Basically. Anyone involved in security, at least. If people were doing nothing to that end, it certainly contributed to the breakdown of security in the shelters afterwards.

Besides, there was also the basic "law and order on the streets" that couldn't exactly be ignored, Hurricane or not.

Quote :

"remind me to keep that line bookmarked somewhere next time you decide not to bow out of a debate"

Oof. ::cat hisses::, ::cat scratching:: -- sure you don't need some herbal tea?

I'm not so entirely sure that "OMF someone disagrees with me, I'll compare them to pyrderi" is a debate.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 11:04 PM. Reason : foo]

9/12/2005 10:56:49 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B63A9513A-25C9-4459-836E-20D3048005D7%7D&siteid=google

If you need more proof that FEMA screwed up (and it was just the local gov), Brown has "resigned" from FEMA, and is being replaced by some guy from Florida.

9/13/2005 2:30:04 AM

Quote :

"Cute, but no. The local and state governments had plans for an evacuation that they believed would wok beforehand. They only realized that it had not worked when it was too late to do anything about it."

so, in other words, the state and local gov'ts failed. Theri plan failed, and it aint dubya's fault that their plans failed...

Quote :

"No--but if you think about it, that should be a hint that if it's hard in my profession, then emergency services is probably an order of magnitude (or three) worse."

In my line of work, its pretty difficult to be able to shoot a ball through a basket. Think how much harder it must be in the NBA! Clearly that means that people in the NBA miss more baskets than I do...

Quote :

"Basically. Anyone involved in security, at least."

really? so the dog catcher needs to be on alert in order for the superdome to be prepped? come on, man...

Quote :

"Besides, there was also the basic "law and order on the streets" that couldn't exactly be ignored, Hurricane or not."

so, in other words, the police needed to keep doing their jobs, eh? what a crazy fucking notion! Its not like they have more policemen than necessary in NO in order to keep NO safe at any one time (IE, on-duty and off-duty po-po) and that they could call on the off-duty policemen to help out... nooooooooooo....

Quote :

"In fact, deciding to send everyone to the superdome and convention center was their backup plan and was probably the best alternative they had once they realized their first plans had failed."

soooo, their "backup plan" involved sending people to a place with no food, no water, and no electricity... and you don't consider that a failure?

Quote :

"So the ~7500 guys of an 11,500 total Louisiana National Guard force stationed over in Iraq were supposed to come back at a day's notice to evacuate the 100,000 people left behind in New Orleans. Couple that with the 1600 member New Orelans Police force, and I think you've got a really feasible plan in place for door-to-door manual mandatory evac in place!"

So, since its impossible to get everyone out, we shouldn't even try? That sounds to me like what TGD is asking. So remind me again how you "trashed" his points again? Was it by capitalizing "GPS" or "unit?"

9/13/2005 6:19:23 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Oof. ::cat hisses::, ::cat scratching:: -- sure you don't need some herbal tea? I'm not so entirely sure that "OMF someone disagrees with me, I'll compare them to pyrderi" is a debate. "

That's funny coming from you...considering you were the first to start with the personal jabs back at "do you have PMS?"

On a side note: if you're going to waste the mental effort to go for the [cute] points, I'd think you would pay a little closer attention to the details (e.g. point out where in this thread I compared you to pryderi)

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: No--but if you think about it, that should be a hint that if it's hard in my profession, then emergency services is probably an order of magnitude (or three) worse."

That...or because there are far more tangible consequences to a fuck up by emergency personnel (like, say, someone dying as opposed to your employer losing a little $texas), they're far better at it out of the necessity of their profession.

Police / EMTs / etc don't get to walk up and go "Damn Ms. Smith, I'm sorry I couldn't save your husband. It was all that added time and complication from Murphy's Law trying to manage the risk of his death in such a short timeframe..."

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: Or is your argument that detailed plans basically mean nothing, and all emergency management can be done ad hoc?"

The initial argument was that the salisburyboy-esque argument behind pryderi's piece was pretty fucking idiotic. The side argument was that the detailed plans should have been executed, including making "mandatory" evacuations mandatory.

But as for this tangent-off-the-tangent debate on action vs inaction, yes: any active government with the slightest smidge of leadership could have saved "x > -0-" more lives than what they did by sitting around, especially given the ample time they had to do something.

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: Basically. Anyone involved in security, at least. If people were doing nothing to that end, it certainly contributed to the breakdown of security in the shelters afterwards. Besides, there was also the basic "law and order on the streets" that couldn't exactly be ignored, Hurricane or not."

Well which hand are we arguing from here?

On the one hand, everyone was at the Superdome. On the other hand, the Superdome was a mess. On the third hand, everyone was helping to maintain "law and order on the streets". On the fourth hand, maintaining "law and order on the streets" that, oh by the way, didn't really exist.

On the fifth hand, regardless, OMF there's no way they could have done anything b/c of Murphy's law...


[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ---]

9/13/2005 11:44:09 PM

Quote :

"(e.g. point out where in this thread I compared you to pryderi)"

Quote :

"pryderi: "The state and local governments were flawless. I blame Bush!" TGD: "gtfo. They didn't even try to do everything they could and are equally to blame for the dead." Smoker4: "Well technically he has a point if you consider the effectiveness of the simple routes in low-time, high-risk situations because ultimately the nursing homes are responsible for getting individuals out of individual homes and certainly the federal government is more to blame than anyone for not living up to its end of the bargain because Nagin only really had two choices and he picked the right one because inaction is OK when the only folks left are the stubborn and infirm and small errors usually cost a lot of time and all.""

Uh. Duh?

Personally I don't think I've responded directly to any of pyrderi's posts in this thread. So you'll pardon me if I don't think I was the first to "make a personal jab."

(unless you think mocking me in the context of a debate I'm not having is anything but disrespectful)

Quote :

"Police / EMTs / etc don't get to walk up and go "Damn Ms. Smith, I'm sorry I couldn't save your husband. It was all that added time and complication from Murphy's Law trying to manage the risk of his death in such a short timeframe...""

This reply is such a total non sequitur. It just has nothing to do with the content of this discussion at all.

Actually all of your replies have been. You still refuse to address any specific points I made. Such as: who were they going to save exactly by sending out these buses, anyway? And why was sending out the buses a better plan (assuming it could've been done at all) than letting the people just go to the shelters?

You really just don't get it. There were two options here:

a) order people to the shelters
b) evacuate everyone by bus

If you do BOTH at once, you quite obviously have mass chaos and confusion. If you choose to evacuate everyone by bus, and tell everyone "just stay put, we're coming for you"--then guess what happens when your plan goes awry? PEOPLE DIE. They're stuck in houses waiting for you.

If you say "go to the shelters," then send out buses anyway--guess what? People will be flooding the streets, they'll be hopping on buses mid-stream, there'll be mobs (that should be more-so reinforced when you see the behavior of people in NO after the storm, looting and such). And when that slows down the evacuation effort--PEOPLE DIE. They're stuck in houses waiting for you.

And that's assuming you actually HAVE a decent plan for how to organize the evacuation-by-bus.
Which the city has admitted they did not.

Quote :

"The initial argument was that the salisburyboy-esque argument behind pryderi's piece was pretty fucking idiotic."

Do you speak English? Can you not write a post without referring to some random TWW bullshit? I don't give a shit about salisburyboy or pyrderi. I'm surprised you don't write about them in your Technician columns.

Quote :

"yes: any active government with the slightest smidge of leadership could have saved "x > -0-" more lives than what they did by sitting around, especially given the ample time they had to do something."

Translation: "If _I_ were there, I'd have run the show perfectly." Classic.

Quote :

"On the one hand, everyone was at the Superdome. On the other hand, the Superdome was a mess. On the third hand, everyone was helping to maintain "law and order on the streets". On the fourth hand, maintaining "law and order on the streets" that, oh by the way, didn't really exist."

Um, you're talking about AFTER the hurricane, which was a mess because of the federal government's failure to arrive in anything resembling a timely manner.

Having trouble finding your ass tonight?

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 12:40 AM. Reason : foo]

9/14/2005 12:36:44 AM

Quote :

"This reply is such a total non sequitur. It just has nothing to do with the content of this discussion at all."

actually, its entirely relevent from the standpoint that his statement elaborates on one reason why EMTs and other emergency personnel should be more highly trained in emergency situations than whatever your non-emergency-oriented job requires. It was kind of a "hey, EMTs deal w/ emergencies... this wouldn't make sense if an EMT said [the quote here], would it?"

Quote :

"Uh. Duh?"

Too bad that wasn't a comparison. Rather it was a chronological account, edited as it may be, of the thread's discussion.

Quote :

"Actually all of your replies have been. You still refuse to address any specific points I made. Such as: who were they going to save exactly by sending out these buses, anyway? And why was sending out the buses a better plan (assuming it could've been done at all) than letting the people just go to the shelters?"

ummm, maybe because saving someone is better than saving no one. I mean, that tends to be the "logic" in the argument that liberals are using in attacking Bush. "OMFG!!! IF DUBYA HAD STOPPED THE HURRICANE THEN PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED!!!"

Quote :

"You really just don't get it. There were two options here: a) order people to the shelters b) evacuate everyone by bus"

Do i detect a false dilemma? There were more options than that. Furthermore, those two options were not mutually exclusive. Order people to the superdome, and then keep trying to get people on buses by going around neighborhoods. This method is far more proactive that simply ordering people to shelters and praying they go...

Quote :

"If you do BOTH at once, you quite obviously have mass chaos and confusion. If you choose to evacuate everyone by bus, and tell everyone "just stay put, we're coming for you"--then guess what happens when your plan goes awry? PEOPLE DIE. They're stuck in houses waiting for you."

Actually, its pretty simple. In your public announcement, you say that both are going. AND, you say that you can leave via bus or you can go to the superdome. That sounds pretty simple to me. There's no chaos there. And guess what happens if you just tell people to go to the superdome and people don't? PEOPLE DIE!!! it happens either way...

Quote :

"Translation: "If _I_ were there, I'd have run the show perfectly." Classic. "

Actually, no. A more adequate translation would be: "Doing something would have saved more lives than doing nothing."

Quote :

"Um, you're talking about AFTER the hurricane, which was a mess because of the federal government's failure to arrive in anything resembling a timely manner."

It probably wouldn't have been as bad of a mess had the local and state gov'ts done any actual planning for such a disaster.

If anything, the only one having trouble finding his ass is you... and thats only because my foot is shoved so far up it that you think its another fucking leg...

9/14/2005 12:50:14 AM

Quote :

"actually, its entirely relevent from the standpoint that his statement elaborates on one reason why EMTs and other emergency personnel should be more highly trained in emergency situations than whatever your non-emergency-oriented job requires."

OK, and that has what to do with anything? I'd still like to know. Are you saying that the job of an EMT under that kind of time/situational pressure is NOT harder than my job under that kind of time/situational pressure?

Quote :

"Rather it was a chronological account, edited as it may be, of the thread's discussion."

Edited? If by "edited" you mean "mocking, inaccurate, and biased," OK.

Don't be stupid.

Quote :

"ummm, maybe because saving someone is better than saving no one. I mean, that tends to be the "logic" in the argument that liberals are using in attacking Bush."

Smoker4:

Quote :

"who were they going to save exactly by sending out these buses, anyway?"

Quote :

""OMFG!!! IF DUBYA HAD STOPPED THE HURRICANE THEN PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED!!!""

aaronburro:

Quote :

"OMFG!! I CAN USE CAPS AND USE OMFG AND EMULATE THE STYLE OF MY HERO TGD!!!"

That was my chronological account, edited as it may be, of your post.

Quote :

"Do i detect a false dilemma?"

Sure, if you just quote the options I put up there totally out of the context of my post, IN WHICH I EXPLAINED WHY THE OPTIONS EXISTED AS SUCH.

Don't try the "false dilemma" bullshit with me.

aaronburro:

Quote :

"OMFG I CAN USE FALSE DILEMMA TO EXPLAIN WHY NO SITUATION HAS A DISCRETE SET OF VIABLE OPTIONS!!!!"

...yet another chronological, edited as it may be, account of your post there.

Quote :

"A more adequate translation would be: "Doing something would have saved more lives than doing nothing.""

aaronburro:

Quote :

"OMFG I WILL ACCUSE SMOKER4 OF USING FALSE DILEMMA, BUT I'LL PRESENT AS MANY AS I LIKE WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT"

Boy--these chronological, yet highly edited, accounts are great. Thanks to you and TGD for introducing me to this concept.

Quote :

"It probably wouldn't have been as bad of a mess had the local and state gov'ts done any actual planning for such a disaster."

Yea, I know, right? Considering I actually said that about three posts ago, you sure are a fucking genius for pointing that out.

Quote :

"If anything, the only one having trouble finding his ass is you... and thats only because my foot is shoved so far up it that you think its another fucking leg..."

aaronburro:

Quote :

"OMFG I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!!!"

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 3:04 AM. Reason : foo]

9/14/2005 3:02:33 AM

pwnt

9/14/2005 3:02:26 PM

if by "pwnt" you mean "ignoring the argument," then sure...

Quote :

"OK, and that has what to do with anything? I'd still like to know. Are you saying that the job of an EMT under that kind of time/situational pressure is NOT harder than my job under that kind of time/situational pressure?"

the difficulty of the job doesn't matter. Its the training for pressure that matters and the expectation of a pressure such as an emergency that could happen every day that makes the difference. Tell me how many times you walk into work and suddenly find out that if you don't do something in the next two hours thousands of people will die. Tell me how many times you walk into work and are expected to save someone's life right then and there...

Quote :

"Edited? If by "edited" you mean "mocking, inaccurate, and biased," OK."

that could be a bit "accurate," except for the "inaccurate" part...

Quote :

"Sure, if you just quote the options I put up there totally out of the context of my post, IN WHICH I EXPLAINED WHY THE OPTIONS EXISTED AS SUCH."

except that your explanations for this were faulty. And I showed so as well. but nice try. Saying "the sky is green, thus we must either run or piss on that statue" doesn't make it any less of a false dilemma, even if you offer rationale for your false dilemma.

9/14/2005 7:12:39 PM

Quote :

"if by "pwnt" you mean "ignoring the argument," then sure..."

Which arguments did I ignore?

Quote :

"the difficulty of the job doesn't matter. Its the training for pressure that matters and the expectation of a pressure such as an emergency that could happen every day that makes the difference."

So are you saying that I am not trained for the particular pressure that I deal with, and the emergencies that arise in my job?

OK, I'll give in. I totally buy your point that all jobs are totally different, and that EMTs are not humans but are in fact robots from another planet who react flawlessly under pressure without any human emotion or fallibility. EMTs never feel pressure or make mistakes.

Thanks for using your experience to point that out to me.

Quote :

"except that your explanations for this were faulty. And I showed so as well. but nice try."

Yes. It went something like this:

aaronburro: OMFG FALSE DILEMMA!!!!
aaronburro: Instead, we can act out my fantasy scenario in which everything goes perfectly through the magic of perfect human communication and response.

You and TGD both sound just like John Kerry during the Presidential debates. It's disgraceful.

Moderator: So Senator Kerry, what do you propose to do about improving the situation in Iraq?
Kerry: Well, we're going to do it BETTER! I'll tell you that much!
Moderator: How?
Kerry: We'll be sure not to make any mistakes like that evil President Bush!!!1

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 7:59 PM. Reason : foo]

9/14/2005 7:58:04 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying that I am not trained for the particular pressure that I deal with, and the emergencies that arise in my job?"

There is the emphasis. Its not that you aren't trained for pressure or emergencies. Its that you aren't trained for the same kind of pressure that disaster planners and EMTs and soldiers and the like are. Thus, to compare your hectic day to theirs is fruitless...

Quote :

"OK, I'll give in. I totally buy your point that all jobs are totally different the same, and that EMTs are not humans have the same type of training that I do but are in fact robots from another planet who react flawlessly the same way to their job under pressure as i do without any human emotion or fallibility. EMTs never feel pressure or make mistakes react to the kind of pressure I face at my job in exactly the same way that I do and exactly the same way that I would react to the pressure of their job."

9/14/2005 8:44:05 PM

pryderi, aaronburro, and MathFreak should all just go ahead and have gay sex. That's what all this animosity is really about, it's okay to admit that you are all gay for each other.

9/14/2005 9:03:43 PM

how is one gay for someone else?

9/14/2005 10:22:32 PM

I don't fuck morons.

9/15/2005 12:46:50 AM

Your marriage must suck then; I heard that sex is an important part of a relationship.

9/15/2005 12:58:02 AM

On TWW, morons fuck you.

9/15/2005 5:04:29 AM

gg

9/15/2005 7:58:27 AM