Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Bobby Knight <bknight@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:49:55 -0500
On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:50:34 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
: >If you've never heard of anyone taking shelter in a closet due
: >to a tornado warning reported on TV... well, ok. If you say so.
A tornado "watch" or tornado "warning" (two different things) are a dime a
dozen. They are not warnings of specific tornados, but merely indicate that
weather conditions in the area are "conducive" to the formation of tornados
(a warning is more conducive than watch).
It is extremely rare (and maybe has never happened) that a TV weather
broadcaster has warned people of a actual tornado with enough specificity of
location for it to be useful for someone to take cover. If a broadcaster had
such specific information of a active tornado (not one that has already
dissipated), then certainly I have no objection of interrupting a TV
broadcast. But such a situation is about as common as someone breaking 60.
Bull***. It has happened...in fact last week. People in Anna and
Westminster, TX were warned that they were in danger. Since neither
town has a siren system there wasn't enough time to do a telephone
warning. TV helped one person who heard the broadcast and left his
home just before it was destroyed. Saving one life is worth that kind
of interruption.
Wrong. You must have never even paid attention to the weather
Usually, when the weather person interrupts a program to show the aftermath
of a tornado, it is not really for the purpose of saving lives or preventing
injury. The tornado is already gone. Rather the real purpose of such reports
on TV is to titillate the audience with images of violence and destruction,
and hopefully (for their ratings) human misery. It is sheer pornography.
broadcasts here in North Texas. The main complaint that I have is
that during such weather situations, all local stations stayed on air
for three hours, tracking the storms. They stayed well ahead of the
weather, giving approximate times that the storms would arrive at
specific communities.
You know not of what you speak. Period.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
?Someone likes every shot?
.
- References:
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Dave Lee
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Mark A
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Chris Bellomy
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Mark A
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Chris Bellomy
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Mark A
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Chris Bellomy
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Chris Bellomy
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- From: Mark A
- Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- Prev by Date: Re: ANN COULTER
- Next by Date: Re: ANN COULTER
- Previous by thread: Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- Next by thread: Re: Immelman on #18 today (5/14)
- Index(es):