NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully I can get this put through, but I'm trying to have the recent Tsunami Detection resolution repealed so it can be rewritten. Basically my argument is that it is impossible to predict/detect earthquakes before they happen, at least at this point, and that a worldwide warning system would be both pointless and a waste of money. If you think about it, it could take seconds to minutes for a tsunami to reach the coast of hundreds to thousands of miles of coastal land, in that time, what could a warning system do but send people in a panic and have them running like made up the mainland? There wouldn't be enough time to evacuate people before the tsunami got there. I'm not saying the idea is stupid, it's a great idea, but impossible and really just pointless.
I'd rather it was rewritten so that it reads that funding could be made to research ways to detect earthquakes before they happen, and to improve the prediction of volcanic eruptions and put together a relief program that would pertain to all forms of massive natural disasters. It basically just needs to be rewritten to be more accurate.
So any support would be great on this guys.

Thanks.

Hopefully I can get this put through, but I'm trying to have the recent Tsunami Detection resolution repealed so it can be rewritten. Basically my argument is that it is impossible to predict/detect earthquakes before they happen, at least at this point, and that a worldwide warning system would be both pointless and a waste of money. If you think about it, it could take seconds to minutes for a tsunami to reach the coast of hundreds to thousands of miles of coastal land, in that time, what could a warning system do but send people in a panic and have them running like made up the mainland? There wouldn't be enough time to evacuate people before the tsunami got there. I'm not saying the idea is stupid, it's a great idea, but impossible and really just pointless.
I'd rather it was rewritten so that it reads that funding could be made to research ways to detect earthquakes before they happen, and to improve the prediction of volcanic eruptions and put together a relief program that would pertain to all forms of massive natural disasters. It basically just needs to be rewritten to be more accurate.
So any support would be great on this guys.

Thanks.

My first advice is to read the resolution:

HINT: It is called the "Tsunami Warning System" resolution, not "Tsunami Detection" resolution as you keep calling it.

For somebody claiming something needs to be "more accurate" you may want to start with your own post.

My second advice is that once you get past the title of the resolution and read it, you'll see that it is not about PREDICTING earthquakes, but detecting them as they occur *and* then using stage (i.e. water level) based sensors to detect the mass movement of water, more commonly refered to as a "tsunami". Again, this was all explained in the resolution.

My third piece of advice is that after finishing my first two requests that you should actually read the first page of the debate for the resolution, as all of the points you raised were explained in simple terms. We called them FAQs, but they talked about the cost of such a system, how it would work, and how many lives (via advanced warning) might be saved.

[OOC: I actually am a water quality engineer and make extensive use of salinity and stage data, some of which is provided by NOAA. I can attest to the fact that the United States and other governments already have a small warning network that combines seismic and stage based sensors to detect, not predict, tsunamis is perhaps one of the most viable systems we as a society have at predicting *when* and *where* a disaster will strike.

It is really frustrating to come here and see somebody claim to have even a basic understanding of either the real-world physics or political culture that currently exists ... and yet describe this process as being "pointless".

As for your comment that there wouldn't be enough time to evacuate people, this is something that scientific experts have constantly disagreed with you on. They've been very careful to point out that while not everybody can be saved, that many people can be.

Please don't pretend to want to repeal something because it is factually incorrect, when it is clear you've not read the facts as presented. It is very clear to me that you've not read the resolution in question, and I'd ask that you actually take the time to read it. While you are doing this, bear in mind that 86% of the votes cast were in favour.

Personally I must say that I'm extremely disappointed by the fact that you are really calling others out for not researching, when it is CLEAR you've not done this yourself. If you had, you would have seen the abundance of information and facts that have been presented already.

As for your other idea about researching earthquakes, actually in the real world there is work going on to predict earthquakes (timing and location), but we still have much to learn about them. There is no reason why a different resolution can't be drafted to address this. Personally, I'm planning on drafting a Hurricane Tracking Center resolution that would address another regional scale problem that results in tremendous property damage and I personally feel would be benefial to multiple nations. Groot Gouda has a draft proposal to address general natural disasters, but one of the biggest challenges somebody can find is to actually build upon existing game resolutions and real-world ideas. If you really were being sincere when you claimed that this is a good idea, I'd seriously encourage you to read what we've already presented before replying to me again, and then thinking of a way to take on the next step.]

My first advice is to read the resolution:

HINT: It is called the "Tsunami Warning System" resolution, not "Tsunami Detection" resolution as you keep calling it.

For somebody claiming something needs to be "more accurate" you may want to start with your own post.

My second advice is that once you get past the title of the resolution and read it, you'll see that it is not about PREDICTING earthquakes, but detecting them as they occur *and* then using stage (i.e. water level) based sensors to detect the mass movement of water, more commonly refered to as a "tsunami". Again, this was all explained in the resolution.

My third piece of advice is that after finishing my first two requests that you should actually read the first page of the debate for the resolution, as all of the points you raised were explained in simple terms. We called them FAQs, but they talked about the cost of such a system, how it would work, and how many lives (via advanced warning) might be saved.

[OOC: I actually am a water quality engineer and make extensive use of salinity and stage data, some of which is provided by NOAA. I can attest to the fact that the United States and other governments already have a small warning network that combines seismic and stage based sensors to detect, not predict, tsunamis is perhaps one of the most viable systems we as a society have at predicting *when* and *where* a disaster will strike.

It is really frustrating to come here and see somebody claim to have even a basic understanding of either the real-world physics or political culture that currently exists ... and yet describe this process as being "pointless".

As for your comment that there wouldn't be enough time to evacuate people, this is something that scientific experts have constantly disagreed with you on. They've been very careful to point out that while not everybody can be saved, that many people can be.

Please don't pretend to want to repeal something because it is factually incorrect, when it is clear you've not read the facts as presented. It is very clear to me that you've not read the resolution in question, and I'd ask that you actually take the time to read it. While you are doing this, bear in mind that 86% of the votes cast were in favour.

Personally I must say that I'm extremely disappointed by the fact that you are really calling others out for not researching, when it is CLEAR you've not done this yourself. If you had, you would have seen the abundance of information and facts that have been presented already.

As for your other idea about researching earthquakes, actually in the real world there is work going on to predict earthquakes (timing and location), but we still have much to learn about them. There is no reason why a different resolution can't be drafted to address this. Personally, I'm planning on drafting a Hurricane Tracking Center resolution that would address another regional scale problem that results in tremendous property damage and I personally feel would be benefial to multiple nations. Groot Gouda has a draft proposal to address general natural disasters, but one of the biggest challenges somebody can find is to actually build upon existing game resolutions and real-world ideas. If you really were being sincere when you claimed that this is a good idea, I'd seriously encourage you to read what we've already presented before replying to me again, and then thinking of a way to take on the next step.]

Well I would first go back and realize I'm not attacking anyone when I bring this out. You're attacking me on a number of different levels.
First, in order to warn people of tsunamis, you have to do what...detect them. You have to know they are coming right. Okay then, so a method to detect tsunami's would be to be able to detect earthquakes before they happen, if I'm wrong about such a thing, well then I guess I don't understand anything about the causes of tsunami's at all. You can't detect earthquakes in this fashion, so that cuts a huge chunk of time for a warning system to be effective.
Second, if there is in fact information on the effectiveness of such a warning system in place today, it was not presented in the resolution, (Study by so and so blah blah). Hence the lack of evidence. My call for rewriting is justified thus far. Evidence to support this resolution needs to be available as maybe a source or a mention of the study or more than just brief word on a system in place. Where is the validation other than a bunch of statistics on tsunami's that have already hit.
If you study the variations in tsunamis, there are so many variables that can change the way a tsunami acts, moves, etc etc etc. So you'd be asking yet again for intensive study of tsunamis on so many different levels. Which again is not fully mentioned in the resolution. It says to impliment systems to warn, etc etc. Okay, warn them of what though. A slow tsunami, a fast tsunami, how high, how low, how far is the damage going to go, etc etc. What about reef's, etc etc. There are hundreds of variables that need to be accounted for that can change the way the tsunami hits. And warning everybody in potential zones of danger (like anybody on a coastal line regardless of variables that exist that would alter the course) is asking hundreds of thousands of people to set aside their lives for something that may not even affect them. Time is money. That could have adverse affects on the economies of many different nations, even more so on third world countries, or countries already in economic strife. You have to take into account that earthquakes do not just stop with the first initial quake, sometimes there are echoes afterwards that may or may not be of a significant magnitude to cause another tsunami. This could mean that people would be out of their homes, out of their jobs etc. for extended periods of time while officials would be analyzing data to figure out when it is safe to return. That is extremely dangerous to weak nations. Not all nations are like America in that we can just set aside something and still be the richest nation in the world. A lot rely on their coastal economies, mostly third world nations.
Information that is important to validate the resolution should have been provided as a source in the resolution. Others who have written resolutions even half as important as this have taken the time to do so, and if the resolution is importan enough it should have been brought up. There are explanations in the resolution yes, but they are either unclear, or in some cases impossible. Has there been data collected on whether people have been saved from tsunami's due to any in place system of warning? If so, it should be mentioned. The resolution is calling for a good quantity of involvement of member nations, yet it is not mentioned where the research is coming from. If there is a thread for it, great, wonderful, but not everybody is going to go to a thread to read it if it isn't mentioned in the resolution. The information should be sourced, mentioned or some how placed inside the resolution to indicate that an effort of understanding has taken place. I understand there are systems currently in place to recognize tsunamis, sure, but are they effective? I don't recall any tsunamis hitting the US in the last 15 years, sure maybe there have been, possibly, but it wasn't on any news I watched, so how do we know the system is effective? Has it been applied to other nations? It has to be sourced in the resolution so people reading it go "oh okay, so there is already something like this, but we're just improving upon it".
It's not my job to source the material, it's the person who wrote it. It's not my job to drill through pages and pages of forum threads. I'm a voter, I go through, I read the resolution, and I vote. I read the resolution, obviously all the way through or I wouldn't have quoted sections from it in my repeal. Did you read the repeal? Probably not as you just automatically assume I didn't read the thing. I was being civil, you've made the first attacks. If there is evidence to support the warning system in saying it is effective, then great, but I think the resolution still should be rewritten. My repeal is more for rewriting the resolution than discounting it's credibility.

Anyway...

You really should read the following, as the vast majority of your assertions were answered in the first page of posts on the resolution debate thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8008871&postcount=2

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8011041&postcount=6

As for your assertion that the resolution should site real-life studies, that is prohibited by the rules of this game.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1

This post is taken from a THREAD you’ve obviously not read which reads, “Before you submit a proposal …”, and it now sounds like you went ahead and submitted a proposal about a resolution you did not read carefully before coming here and reading what the game rules are.

Specifically if you had read through things first you would have seen:

4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]

Pay close attention to “you may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports”. This does not say, “everybody but Mikitivity, may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports”. Your claim that we should have only furthers to display your ignorance.

But that much is already clear based on a number of other things you’ve written, such as your claim that it is necessary to PREDICT earthquakes in order to detect tsunami waves (which is far from the truth), as was addressed (in detail) already in these posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7847690&postcount=56
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7909794&postcount=110
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7910622&postcount=114

I’m not even going to respond "directly" to many of your other comments, because we’ve covered them in depth for WEEKS now, and they are scientifically incorrect, specifically:

In most cases, any warnings that would be derived from activity from underwater Volcanoes would be incorrect. The inaccuracy of such predictions, and the warnings that would follow, could cause damage to nations as they proceed with unnecessary evacuations and other procedures.

This is wrong. I already have quoted NOAA sources that dispute this, which you would have seen if you had bothered to read anything first.

You also said several times in your repeal text that the resolution sought to predict earthquakes, and yet it never said that. Not once.

I think this is incredibly dishonest of you!

In short, Tsunami waves are not earthquakes. They are caused by displacements of water. Any college student should under that. If it helps, next time you are in your bath room fill up your bath tub. Toss a bar of soap in the tub. Waves will ripple out from the tub. Now jump in the tub and sit there until the waves from getting in die down. Now jump out. There will be waves again. All three of these actions are non-tidal waves in the tub, and all three are caused by displacements, two when something is added to the water (a bar of soap or you) and one when you leave.

The key to detecting a tsunami is not in PREDICTING an earthquake, but in detecting a physical displacement of water. In literally seeing a “wave”. In the real world NOAA uses stage gauges and seismic gauges together to detect these waves. The seismic gauges pick up any earthquake felt on the earth by using __3__ or more stations (I already talked about this in detail too … another fact you’ve ignored). Since P-waves and S-waves generated by earthquakes travel faster than displaced water (a tsunami basically), they give some forewarning. In the case of a deep ocean earthquake (which is actually the cause of some of the more significant historical tsunami – already listed in the resolution thread which you ignored), seismic gauges tell the stage gauges to sample water levels at a greater frequency. If a non-tidal based wave should pass by a stage buoy, the buoy will send an alarm.

Again, I work with these things day after day, and could point to papers I’ve published that make use of this sort of data in addition to technical papers devoted to forecasting water levels that I’ve personally edited.

In any event, once a wave is detected, it is not as hard you are purposefully misleading people to send out a warning that for some places (say India, Sri Lanka, and Africa in the most recent tsunami) could send out police forces to tell people to retreat to higher ground. Bear in mind that for every person who died in the tsunami that there are stories of people who saw first hand the waves and lived. Many of them lived because they were lucky enough to run to higher ground.

Though science fiction stories have shown waves of 100s of meters, when a tsunami approaches shallow waters, a typical wave, measuring 10s of meters, will begin to slow down and “disperse” (that means spread out). In doing so, the waves loose energy and height. It is very possible that given 30 minutes of warning to send people to higher ground. This is what is done in the United States, and again, I’ve pointed this out numerous times.

Frankly, I think it is very irresponsible of somebody like you to claim to be knowledgeable in something you clearly aren’t. If you had spent maybe 1 hour reading the debates, you’d see that every FALSE statements you’ve made has been answered and supported by links to many NOAA and other web pages.

Why don't you go back through your entire post and come at me with something CIVIL! All you make are attacks on my intelligence. Okay, so I made a mistake on the rules of the UN thing, heaven forbid that any HUMAN BEING makes a mistake. I'm HUMAN. I'm not a God. I have never claimed to be such, therefore I am entitled to my mistakes.
If real life studies are not allowed, okay then so has there ever been a resolution put in place that would ask for funding to research detection of tsunami's in its many forms (which by the way I never stated that it was necessary ONLY to detect earthquakes. Never said that. However, I did say specifically that they are an underlying cause of tsunamis, if that is incorrect, then tell the whole world that). If we're not allowed to use real world studies, then I would make the assumption that no such resolution has been put in place that would have asked for research or placement of all the tools we have in the real world that would allow for detection of tsunami's, it's causes, etc etc etc. Then again, rewriting the resolution becomes necessary.
You have made just as many ignorant assumptions. I never said in my repeal that earthquakes had to be detected. I recognized that predicting them would be impossible. You should reread my repeal OVER again, because you claim me of ignorance yet you yourself or a fault to it. I don't blame you for that, nor claim you on it, because I recognize you are just as human as I am, and being human means we are prone to make mistakes. Regardless, you've claimed me of saying things I never said. I never said predicting earthquakes was absolutely essential for this resolution to work, never said that. I recognized that predicting them is impossible at this point and that they are a cause of earthquakes. I'm not retarded, I know a tsunami and earthquakes are different, so don't insult me like that. If you are not making the connection between the two, then either I said it to you in a way you didn't catch the difference, or I don't know. Regardless, correct me if I'm wrong, but tsunami's are caused by earthquakes in the majority of cases correct? Since we can't predict them, okay, so we're stuck with predicting volcanic eruptions, which could be another cause, which is about 50/50 most of the time. Then we're down to being able to issue warning to hundreds of thousands of people in dozens if not hundreds of coastal nations that a tsunami is coming, what kind, etc etc...blah blah. I've already gone over this in the other post.
Anyway, if your following posts are only going to include insults and attacks, then don't bother posting, because I don't want to hear it. If I'm wrong, okay I'm terribly sorry I've destroyed your little world where you are God and always right. I'm allowed to be wrong, there's no law that says I can't be. If I'm wrong, then you correct me in a CIVIL manner, you don't insult me. If I say something offensive, you say so, in which case i will most likely apologize for, as I doubt it was intentional. But there is no need for insults or attacks in this debate, or any debate for that matter, and if you and others cannot remain civil, there is no point that I continue arguing with you, it would be a waste of everyone's time. It's like all the Bush/Kerry arguments, both sides so adament and angered that they launch attacks on eachother, as with the Creationist/Evolutionist arguments.

Anyway...

By briefly skimming your arguments, it is very easy to tell that you are only briefly skimming their arguments. Since you are, in fact, skimming their arguments, picking out what you like and twisting it into a convoluted knot, I don't see why anyone should pay attention to you. Look at the evidence they presented you. Also, a little more attention to your grammar would be nice.

They didn't refer to you as unintelligent. They referred to you quite directly as dishonest and irresponsible, and they gave specific reasons and examples for it. They are doing their job, being honorable debators, and are, I'm certain, becoming quite angry with you for not following suit. I, however, will most certainly be referring to you as unintelligent. Your last post seems to provide all the evidence I need.

I'm HUMAN. I'm not a God. I have never claimed to be such, therefore I am entitled to my mistakes.

Not a God, huh? Too bad. We need more of them. I, as a minor demigod, think it might be helpful. However, even demigods can be wrong on occasion, and at that point people point out that particular mistake, they'll hopefully make a change or adapt their strategem. How does the saying go? Everyones entitled to their own (wrong) opinion. But when you place that opinion in a forum, people will criticize, point out the flaws, and often they will be right. It's good for you, you can learn from it. Unless you're stupid.

I treat your entire thread with an air of ridiculousness because it is, in fact, a ridiculous thread. They gave you evidence, you ignored it. They pointed out your mistakes, and you attacked them for being high and mighty. Instead of taking the facts and considering them, you associate their attacks with unrelated examples - Bush and Kerry have nothing to do with Tsunamis, this argumentation, or NationStates in general.

Your primary argumentation here is "Hey, human people make mistakes!". This repeal is one of those mistakes. Your continued argumentation is another. Making mistakes is fine, holding to them is folly. Look at the argumentation, look at the evidence, look at what you've written, and then go away. Demigods prefer perfection.

It is clear you did not read the original resolution, as you claim, in your repeal, that the original resolution talks about predicting earthquakes. It never does. Not once.

Want me to quote it?

It must also be recognized that Earthquakes, one of the main causes of Tsunami's, cannot be predicted, nor can they be detected until after the initial quakes begin.

Irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution has nothing to do with predicting earthquakes. I'd say this is an attempt at deception on your part or you didn't read the resolution. Which doesn't matter, because in either case your comment is misleading.

In most cases, any warnings that would be derived from activity from underwater Volcanoes would be incorrect. The innaccuracy of such predictions, and the warnings that would follow, could cause damage to nations as they proceed with unnecessary evacuations and other procedures.

Again, incorrect. The resolution itself also talked about buoys and the use of stage data to detect tsunamis. Despite the fact that volcanic activity actually is associated with earthquakes (they are both seismic events), buoys are part of the resolution, and clearly you either did not again read the resolution or are lying here.

While warnings could be made to nations in danger of incoming Tsunami's, in most cases little more than a few minutes would be available to evacuate upwards of hundreds of thousands of people in all areas that would be affected.

Again false. In the debate many times it was pointed out that places like Sri Lanka and India did in fact have enough time to warn and save thousands of lives. However, it is clear that you are still not reading posts, so I'll provide a link again here (it took me 10 minutes to search and read all of the following):

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/ind-j10.shtml
http://sify.com/news/othernews/fullstory.php?id=13637304
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4149201.stm
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/tsunami.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/06/tsunami.science/

The warning system alerts nations that destructive waves may hit their coastlines within three to 14 hours. -- from the second article

This first site actually reports that the 6:29 am earthquake did not hit islands belonging to Indian until 7:30 am at the earliest. Mainland India was not hit until 8:32 am. That is two hours after the seismic event to move people a quarter or full mile inland or to a shelter.

Hawaii has such a system. There is no reason that India and other nations can't begin work on just such a system.

And from the third article:

Tragically, it seems it was the final chain in the communication cascade that failed on Boxing Day. The truth is people did know about the earthquake, they did know about the tsunami threat, they just didn't know how to tell people.

The warning system could save lives, say some experts
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre in Hawaii picked up the earthquake. But despite the phone calls they made, the emergency response in Asia did not exist.

But again, this is an example of you making a false statement. Where experts have pointed out that in many cases there may be a few hours, you are attempting to mislead people into thinking that there is no warning time whatsoever? Do you know nothing about tsunamis and just making up facts, or are you attempting to mislead people? Basically what makes you right, and real life scientific experts wrong???

Finally, you used the WRONG title for it here, and then made some very ballant mistakes like claiming the resolution was wrong because it didn't provide research links in its text. Why should anybody believe you that you know what you are talking about when you despite claiming to have read the resolution, you can't call it by its proper name, that you don't know the NationStates rules, and finally you demand that others provide links and research and you've submitted NONE???

I'm not trying to be nice. I'm not treating you with "kid gloves", because this topic is all over the internet. Anybody can spend 10 minutes looking for information from numerous news, government, and blog pages to find anything they want. You've not bothered to do that.


If you take home anything here it is that before you go making a repeal for a resolution, you should:

1. Read the resolution you are repealing first.

2. When making your repeal, actually cite complaints based on the resolution and not the incorrect assumptions you've done here. Don't make false claims about the resolution! Everybody can see it, so do you want people thinking you don't know what you are talking about???

3. If you question something on a resolution, read the resolution debate. In this case, all of your statements were addressed EARLY in the discussion ... had you read the discussions, you'd see that you were wrong.

4. Spend a bit of time doing research on the topic. You've thus far displayed no support for any of your claims. In this particular case, you really should spend a bit of time using google and reading news articles on NOAA's DART program for starters and then also try the keyword search "Tsunami Warning" or "Tsunami Warnings".

I'm not trying to be nice. You came in here, telling a bunch of us that have spent weeks on this and have been very open about what we've done and ignored all our work. You and I both know you never really read the resolution. You may have glanced at it, but it is very clear you did not sit down and read it. You also did not bother to read the debates or even rules for this game, and you really should. I don't know why you think after your rude behavior that others should treat somebody who is obviously not listening with any politeness? We've tried that for weeks ... you ignored us. While I seriously doubt that you'll be any less closed minded now that I'm basically pointing out all your mistakes, I'm hoping that the next time you do something without reading and researching that you'll think twice about it.

This is not the case of somebody coming in an making an honest mistake. This is the case of somebody who: hasn't bothered to do any research, hasn't read the resolution he is repealing, and who doesn't have a clue about the rules of this game rudely coming in here and telling everybody else they are wrong.

Score
----------
Miktivity: 1
Arconnus: 0

He got ya, Arconnus. Just let it die.

I'd like to point out one thing: it is spelled Mikitivity. The cool thing about this forum is when you reply to somebody it copies their name. You see it, you read it. I can understand a typo or two, but throughout an entire post?

If I started calling you Arkunnus, would you believe that I've paid attention and read your posts? Might it be logical for me to assume that you are either being rude or just not really paying attention?


Arconnus, I'm only asking that people read things first. Not glance at them and make terrible assumptions. You did this with our resolution and made many terrible assumptions. I think that was unfair to those of us that spent weeks on this, and I think it was rude.

But if you really are interested is seeing quality legislation, I'd suggest that you read Grosseschaunzer's new thread on natural disasters and add your opinions. That is the place to get involved in building something and I think we all can learn something by participating from the ground up.

You might think me a meanie head or jerk. I'd like to rather describe my government as being like a rose ... we can be nice and helpful, but if you grab the rose in the wrong way, you'll likely catch a thorn. My point is, I'm not going to jump down people if I think they are honestly trying to participate and be helpful. I honestly found your proposal and posts here to be insincere and in light of the abundance of posts and discussions on the topic, frankly rude. However, you have the ability to make me change my mind and can easily do so by adding your voice and opinions to Grosseschaunzer's thread. You don't have to agree with people there, but just participate ... that means reading and responding directly to comments people bring up.

Grosseschaunzer, Groot Gouda, and myself never wanted the Tsunami Warning System resolution to be the end of the discussion on natural disasters and humanitarian aid. In fact, we have been up front here and on various regional boards when we've told others that we see this as a way to really educate nations about the dangers and costs of natural disasters and we are committeed to building an international consensus on ways to prevent and mitigate the damages from natural disasters. Consensus of course means we want nations to join us, not fight against us as your repeal was doing.

So I'm asking that you please consider joining that new thread. :)

Arconnus, may the Federation of Grosseschnauzer make a respectful request that you look at my first two posts in the thread entitled "[Discussion] NSUN Working Group on Natural Diaster Detection and Warning Systems" located at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393479 ? Then if you feel you have anything to contribute, please do so, especially if you have real life links to information supportive of your position. That would be quite useful at this time, as it would have been before the final, sdopted version of the resolution was submitted as a proposal. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Ok, whatever happened to admitting your wrong, in a civil way and being done with it? (Referring to Arkunnus, not enough respect to spell it right). I would dismiss Arkunnus's saying your were being rude as an attempt to distract you and readers from the fact that he had lost from post 2. Good job Mikitivity, I congratulate you. It is commendable to be able to present such well thought out and above all, patient, arguements in the face of such blatant and unjustified trolling.

I'd like to point out one thing: it is spelled Mikitivity. The cool thing about this forum is when you reply to somebody it copies their name. You see it, you read it. I can understand a typo or two, but throughout an entire post?

If I started calling you Arkunnus, would you believe that I've paid attention and read your posts? Might it be logical for me to assume that you are either being rude or just not really paying attention?


Arconnus, I'm only asking that people read things first. Not glance at them and make terrible assumptions. You did this with our resolution and made many terrible assumptions. I think that was unfair to those of us that spent weeks on this, and I think it was rude.

But if you really are interested is seeing quality legislation, I'd suggest that you read Grosseschaunzer's new thread on natural disasters and add your opinions. That is the place to get involved in building something and I think we all can learn something by participating from the ground up.

You might think me a meanie head or jerk. I'd like to rather describe my government as being like a rose ... we can be nice and helpful, but if you grab the rose in the wrong way, you'll likely catch a thorn. My point is, I'm not going to jump down people if I think they are honestly trying to participate and be helpful. I honestly found your proposal and posts here to be insincere and in light of the abundance of posts and discussions on the topic, frankly rude. However, you have the ability to make me change my mind and can easily do so by adding your voice and opinions to Grosseschaunzer's thread. You don't have to agree with people there, but just participate ... that means reading and responding directly to comments people bring up.

Grosseschaunzer, Groot Gouda, and myself never wanted the Tsunami Warning System resolution to be the end of the discussion on natural disasters and humanitarian aid. In fact, we have been up front here and on various regional boards when we've told others that we see this as a way to really educate nations about the dangers and costs of natural disasters and we are committeed to building an international consensus on ways to prevent and mitigate the damages from natural disasters. Consensus of course means we want nations to join us, not fight against us as your repeal was doing.

So I'm asking that you please consider joining that new thread. :)

I had no intention of being rude and I do apologize if I have said things that came off that way. I do go back now and look and see that my approach to the repeal was probably not well placed. I did place unneeded emphasis on earthquakes and now that I think about it, that wasn't even what I was trying to say, I just got stuck on it. I just don't like it when people call me ignorant or stupid or anything that nature. I understand that I have made mistakes, said something wrong, or whatever, it's just the part about the name calling and all of that which gets to me. It's the problem I have had repeatedly with people who are Bush supporters, in that I try to discuss with them things (specifically his wrong doings, not that I'm going to get into it at all here), and almost immediately I've become a stupid liberal imbocile just for voicing my opinion, not that this has gone to the extent as those conversations have gone...believe me they get bad, you probably have seen them here on NS.

I think what I had intended to do with the repeal never really came out and I realize that, in fact I look at the repeal and realize I didn't even say what I was trying to say :S. I should have pointed out the problem with evacuating people when a tsunami is spotted. If you think about it, let's take a city roughly the size of say San Francisco or New York, you know just a huge massive city. If you were given and optimistic figure of a week to evacuate everybody, it would turn into hell. The streets would be overcrowded, crime would skyrocket, it would be a disaster. You might actually cause more harm, it's possible anyway. There is always that possibility that magically all the people will behave and move in an orderly fashion, but the more I watch people in panic situations I realize that in large numbers, humans are stupid. Smaller cities it might not be a big deal, even at a 24 hour level. Towns and that sort of thing wouldn't be a big deal at all if given a day, provided there is support there by law enforcement and what not, obviously if you left it up to the people living there the traffic would be horrendous and basically people would end up in harms way anyway. Not only that, but I think about how much time could possibly be given to people. Wasn't the turnaround rate for the earthquake to tsunami impact in this recent one pretty low? Like 24 hours wasn't it? I saw satellite images where you had one image, then the satellite goes around the planet, I'm not sure how fast that is, and then comes around and you see the devestation, at least as well as the satellite could see, you just saw the water line move up the coasts. I think that is the main reason this should be rewritten and unfortunately I've completed bypassed it for whatever reason. I dunno, it's just very hard to accept that a warning system would be very effective with time constraints and all the variables applied to a tsunami. Say you get a tsunami 10 times as big as the one that hit recently, that's going to be a massive wave and it would move further up the coastline, that reduces the possibility of using rooftops for safety, or running to high ground, you'd have to go to even higher ground to be safe and that could take even long, and traffic would add in on that and it would turn into something like that scene in Independence Day where everyone is running from the city, or even that scene in Deep Impact for the same reason when they knew that huge wave was going to be coming, not that we'd see something that massive after an earthquake or whatever.

I dunno, but anyway, I also didn't mean to misspell your name and it will sound like an excuse, cause it is, but I was in a hurry when I wrote that, I was literally a few minutes from running out the door and I didn't do a spellcheck at all, as I'm not doing in this instance most likely. Hopefully I've cleared myself up here. I didn't intend to be rude, or offend or anything. That is rarely my intention. I just got very offended from the name calling and the way my mistakes were brought to my attention. I seriously do not mind being wrong, I just don't like name calling or being attacked or whatever. As you put it, I didn't mean to grab a thorn, I didn't mean for anything like that at all. So hopefully this won't happen again, because it doesn't make for fun arguments at all.

Anyway.

Arconnus, I think it is fair to say that the sponsors plan to use the working group tol look at how to provide additional precautionary actions to save lives and protect property.

However, the language most likely would be general and not specific; conditions vary from country to country and what is best for one place may not be the best for another. As a matter for reference, in the recent RL Indian Ocean tsunamis, some buildings survived the tsunami impact, especially buildings with upper floors that were above the reported height of the tsunami waves (as illustrated by the amatuer video footage aired by media organizations worldwide). In some places, the effect of the waves went inland from one to two kilometers from the coastline, which points to two ways of protecting life (go up to higher floors or moving sufficiently inland), and supports minimum building standards to protect life. THe fact that the primary construction in major mosques survived the impact of tsunami waves, as well as multi-story hotels, esepcially on floors that remained unsubmerged points to the potential of building codes to protect life and property, as is the case with earthquakes and tropical cyclones.
As I said before, I believe the working group is the best place to address your concerns. I sincerely hope you would consider joining us there and participating.

Arconnus, I think it is fair to say that the sponsors plan to use the working group tol look at how to provide additional precautionary actions to save lives and protect property.

However, the language most likely would be general and not specific; conditions vary from country to country and what is best for one place may not be the best for another. As a matter for reference, in the recent RL Indian Ocean tsunamis, some buildings survived the tsunami impact, especially buildings with upper floors that were above the reported height of the tsunami waves (as illustrated by the amatuer video footage aired by media organizations worldwide). In some places, the effect of the waves went inland from one to two kilometers from the coastline, which points to two ways of protecting life (go up to higher floors or moving sufficiently inland), and supports minimum building standards to protect life. THe fact that the primary construction in major mosques survived the impact of tsunami waves, as well as multi-story hotels, esepcially on floors that remained unsubmerged points to the potential of building codes to protect life and property, as is the case with earthquakes and tropical cyclones.
As I said before, I believe the working group is the best place to address your concerns. I sincerely hope you would consider joining us there and participating.

Will look into it as soon as this lovely jolt sent from the heavens above settles. Just found out my chemistry book for college is missing and I suspect it has been stolen, which means I'll be fishing out another 100+ for a new one. Irritation and anger doesn't really say exactly how I feel right now...always happens to me...sigh.

Anyway, when things calm down and I get this mess sorted I'll take a look.

Laters.

Just found out my chemistry book for college is missing and I suspect it has been stolen, which means I'll be fishing out another 100+ for a new one.

Anyway, when things calm down and I get this mess sorted I'll take a look.


:(

That stinks. I hope you find your book. As for the other discussion, I don't think we'll be rushing things, from the stand point that giving people more time to participate is usually a good thing. That and I'd like to stall the progress a bit, because I think having a bit of variation in the subject matter of the UN resolutions is important -- we all are prone to topic fatique.