>>I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice. <<
New Orleans may be nearly empty, but Metairie, the WestBank and the Northshore are repopulated with very compromised services!
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LATEST IR OR VISIBLE SAT LOOP!!!
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
I disagree!
0 likes
-
arcticfire
- Tropical Storm

- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:58 am
- Location: Anchorage, AK
- Contact:
Re: I disagree!
cowboy72 wrote:>>I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice. <<
New Orleans may be nearly empty, but Metairie, the WestBank and the Northshore are repopulated with very compromised services!
Still better then it hitting non devestated areas in texas.
0 likes
- HurryKane
- Category 5

- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi
arcticfire wrote:jburns wrote:Sad to say but a surprise hit on New Orleans would be one of the better options as far as lives and economic costs are concerned. The city is almost completely empty and, considering that most buildings will have to be bulldozed anyway, about as trashed as you can get.
I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice.
But you can render an already damaged but liveable home unliveable. It's real nice of you folks who haven't had the crap kicked out of you to think that we're expendable.
0 likes
- HurryKane
- Category 5

- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi
gulfcoastdave wrote:I agree...........if only thing you have to do is get on the guy about the caps LOCK..................STOP
OK
I was simply encouraging good communication skills. Fifteen run-on sentences with no punctuation and in all caps tend to leave the reader with the impression of the writing and not the impression of the message contained therein.
When you communicate poorly, the person it hurts most is yourself.
0 likes
-
arcticfire
- Tropical Storm

- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:58 am
- Location: Anchorage, AK
- Contact:
HurryKane wrote:arcticfire wrote:jburns wrote:Sad to say but a surprise hit on New Orleans would be one of the better options as far as lives and economic costs are concerned. The city is almost completely empty and, considering that most buildings will have to be bulldozed anyway, about as trashed as you can get.
I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice.
But you can render an already damaged but liveable home unliveable. It's real nice of you folks who haven't had the crap kicked out of you to think that we're expendable.
Your not , but you house is. Listen it may sound heartless , but when talking about potential destruction the best place for another massive hurricain is right where the last one went. It won't seem like it to whoever has the house that made it threw the first one and fails in the second. Compared to hitting a completly seperate major metrepolitan area it is however "better" in the sence there will be less additional destruction.
The comment is made abotu property , not people , people are never expendable.
0 likes
- HurryKane
- Category 5

- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Diamondhead, Mississippi
arcticfire wrote:HurryKane wrote:arcticfire wrote:jburns wrote:Sad to say but a surprise hit on New Orleans would be one of the better options as far as lives and economic costs are concerned. The city is almost completely empty and, considering that most buildings will have to be bulldozed anyway, about as trashed as you can get.
I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice.
But you can render an already damaged but liveable home unliveable. It's real nice of you folks who haven't had the crap kicked out of you to think that we're expendable.
Your not , but you house is. Listen it may sound heartless , but when talking about potential destruction the best place for another massive hurricain is right where the last one went. It won't seem like it to whoever has the house that made it threw the first one and fails in the second. Compared to hitting a completly seperate major metrepolitan area it is however "better" in the sence there will be less additional destruction.
The comment is made abotu property , not people , people are never expendable.
People will become expendable. Why? Rita would be the push over the edge that would literally kill some Katrina victims just from stress and despair. It's very easy to say that kind of thing from off in Alaska when you don't see the desparation and anguish every day.
I've run this Rita=Katrina idea by all of my coworkers and not a one thinks it is beneficial. I don't want it to hit anyone, but to want it to completely finish off a struggling area is cruel.
0 likes
-
arcticfire
- Tropical Storm

- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:58 am
- Location: Anchorage, AK
- Contact:
HurryKane wrote:arcticfire wrote:HurryKane wrote:arcticfire wrote:jburns wrote:Sad to say but a surprise hit on New Orleans would be one of the better options as far as lives and economic costs are concerned. The city is almost completely empty and, considering that most buildings will have to be bulldozed anyway, about as trashed as you can get.
I would have to agree with that. You can't destroy the same house twice.
But you can render an already damaged but liveable home unliveable. It's real nice of you folks who haven't had the crap kicked out of you to think that we're expendable.
Your not , but you house is. Listen it may sound heartless , but when talking about potential destruction the best place for another massive hurricain is right where the last one went. It won't seem like it to whoever has the house that made it threw the first one and fails in the second. Compared to hitting a completly seperate major metrepolitan area it is however "better" in the sence there will be less additional destruction.
The comment is made abotu property , not people , people are never expendable.
People will become expendable. Why? Rita would be the push over the edge that would literally kill some Katrina victims just from stress and despair. It's very easy to say that kind of thing from off in Alaska when you don't see the desparation and anguish every day.
I've run this Rita=Katrina idea by all of my coworkers and not a one thinks it is beneficial. I don't want it to hit anyone, but to want it to completely finish off a struggling area is cruel.
People breaking down because they can't cope does not mean they are expendable. That means they need to move , no one is pushing them back to the coast at gunpoint. I'll be the first to admit , I have little sympathy when it comes to coastal communities getting ravaged by a coastal weather event. However , I'm not evil just because I don't cry at the thought of someones home being destroyed.
I wish everyone in the path the best , but my opinion remains the same.
0 likes
-
arcticfire
- Tropical Storm

- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:58 am
- Location: Anchorage, AK
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: wwizard and 311 guests


