Why the media ignored the nashville flood

Discussion in 'Nashville' started by Daves not here, May 6, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GoTitans3801

    GoTitans3801 Forward Progress!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,640
    Oh wow. See, this is EXACTLY why I can't listen to you on other topics. Yeah, you think you're making a logical, factual statement, and you sound reasonable. But really, you're not basing it off anything and you have no idea what you're talking about.

    If the levees hadn't burst, Katrina would have been just another mild hurricane that did a little damage to New Orleans and quite a bit of damage to other areas of the coast. Those happen every few years. The flood was what caused the major problems in New Orleans. Yes, the flood was indirectly caused by the hurricane, as I said above.

    Your "bet" is way off, as are most of your assumptions that you don't care to take the time or effort to back up.
    #11
  2. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,025
    Because I say it "seems". Or "you'd think" I'm being some kind of know it all?

    lmao

    Nice try. One would naturally assume high winds with rain from hurricanes that can send water through walls (like needles) would do more damage than rising waters. Again, it's hard to see that high waters would do much damage- just from an observational stand point.
    Maybe you can't "listen to me" because you simply can't comprehend what I'm saying?
    #12
  3. JCBRAVE

    JCBRAVE @JCBRAVE

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,782
    I think GoTitans1234 would like for others to be able to take home what they read here as facts. The fact of the matter is that it was the water damage that damaged things so much. If it just flooded then receded, the damage wouldn't be as bad, but since homes sat there rotting for days and days it was the waters fault. Maybe the wind opened things up to allow water in, but the amount of time the water was stagnate was why it was so bad. If you said all that Deuce Wayne, he wouldn't care so much.
    #13
  4. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Old Man Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,931
    What?


    Clearly I don't understand what you are saying. Surely you don't mean "it's hard to see that high waters (up to roof levels on homes) would do much damage".
    #14
  5. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,025
    No, I mean just high waters. They do more damage than you'd expect.

    I guess we're all Weather Channel reps here though.
    #15
  6. CRUDS

    CRUDS Start Whitehurst Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    14,914
    #16
    • High Five High Five x 2
  7. Tuckfro42

    Tuckfro42 Frozen Donkey Wheel

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,888
    Not if one has actually visited such a place. But, you keep on trumpeting your second-hand expertise.
    #17
  8. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    25,734
    which is exactly why the media payed more attention to the NO flood than the one in nashville.

    had the levees been built the way they were supposed to be built the entire situation would have been avoided. nashville was just an unfortunate set of unavoidable circumstances.
    #18
    • High Five High Five x 1
  9. GoTitans3801

    GoTitans3801 Forward Progress!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,640

    No, I can't listen to you because you say things as if they are facts, when you're actually just "betting" on what you think is logical.

    In this case, it's clear that you have no idea what actually happened to New Orleans when Katrina hit, but you're taking your own perception of it and making "natural assumptions." Yes, winds from a strong hurricane can do much more damage than "high waters." However, 1) Katrina wasn't that strong of a hurricane when it made landfall, it was downgraded ffrom a category fiveto a category three, and 2) it didn't directly hit New Orleans, it hit east of the city. I talked to people in the city that day, when the hurricane had passed, but when most people didn't know yet that they levees had broken. People came out and thought it was another close call, the same kind that happens about every other year down there. It wasn't until the flooding started that things got bad.

    No, I don't expect you to be a weather expert. However, I don't listen to you when you start trying to "open people's eyes" and get them to "stop listening to the mainstream media", because you're clearly perfectly happy to lecture on subjects where you have no idea what you're talking about.
    #19
  10. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,025
    I know all about the reason NO flooded. I'm making the point that most people would assume that a hurricane does more damage than high water. Without actually knowing the dangers of either, that'd just be natural.

    125mph winds throwing things around and tearing houses to shreds seems a bit more intimidating than flood waters.

    Again... Just the natural assumption. I'm not saying it is. One would just automatically assume so.

    but I guess not.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzoONKQhk8&feature=related

    But who would assume such things. The energy of 20k atomic bombs vs rising water? I'm just crazy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9VpwmtnOZc


    But again, I don't actually assume you guys are actually reading anything I type. Like usual. All I'm saying- is judging by appearance, you'd think a Hurricane is much more damage inflicting than rising waters.
    #20
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.