Charles Hawtrey

"Markku Grönroos" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Okay, okay. There is no need to reside nearby beaches. There is no need to
    >build anything - houses, roads and so worth along the shorelines of the
    >oceans. If man just had adapted practices to stay a good deal away and above
    >from seas in any case, nothing like what happend on the Boxing Day, would
    >have not happened. It is all politics.

For the life of me, I can't figure out whether this comment is serious
or sarcastic (or both).


--
Mitt huvud trillar av och det är fullt av godis.

Viking

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:49:02 -0000, "Miss L. Toe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hopefully it will get sufficient media attention in the USA to finally put
    >11/9 into its proper perspective.

Hm. Perhaps remembering that one was caused by terrorists and one by a
9.0 magnitude earthquake will put 9/11 in perspective for you too.

Markku Grönroos

"Charles Hawtrey" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:[email protected]...
    > "Markku Grönroos" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >Okay, okay. There is no need to reside nearby beaches. There is no need
to
    > >build anything - houses, roads and so worth along the shorelines of the
    > >oceans. If man just had adapted practices to stay a good deal away and
above
    > >from seas in any case, nothing like what happend on the Boxing Day, would
    > >have not happened. It is all politics.
    > For the life of me, I can't figure out whether this comment is serious
    > or sarcastic (or both).
It can be seen as a serious effort to stress that man shouldn't poke his
nose quite everywhere. This sort of accident and of this magnitude is
extremely rare though (occurs worldwide perhaps once a millenium). Pompeii
and a couple of other towns went flat on the base of Vesuvius recently (less
than 2000 years ago). These mighty eruptions happen every now and then in
many regions in the world (for instance the archipelago of Indonesia
(mostly) is built on them). I just don't know whether man has learned his
lesson about the elements. Today at the site resides city of Naples whose
population is counted in millions...... Similarly in California everything
man made is built (several nuclear plants among others) on a giant tectonic
fault. There is potential there for a catastrophy which makes the recent
earthquake to appear as a minor incident. We just wait and see. It can
happen tomorrow or some time later.

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn

Markku Grönroos <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
    > It can be seen as a serious effort to stress that man shouldn't poke his
    > nose quite everywhere.

Most of the people killed weren't killed in tourist resorts, you know-
no matter how much that has grabbed the headlines. These were mostly
people who lived there, and had done for centuries, often making what
living they could from the sea. Your statement doesn't make much sense,
unless you concede man shouldn't live anywhere then.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic

Markku Grönroos writes:

    > It can be seen as a serious effort to stress that man shouldn't poke his
    > nose quite everywhere. This sort of accident and of this magnitude is
    > extremely rare though (occurs worldwide perhaps once a millenium). Pompeii
    > and a couple of other towns went flat on the base of Vesuvius recently (less
    > than 2000 years ago). These mighty eruptions happen every now and then in
    > many regions in the world (for instance the archipelago of Indonesia
    > (mostly) is built on them). I just don't know whether man has learned his
    > lesson about the elements. Today at the site resides city of Naples whose
    > population is counted in millions...... Similarly in California everything
    > man made is built (several nuclear plants among others) on a giant tectonic
    > fault. There is potential there for a catastrophy which makes the recent
    > earthquake to appear as a minor incident. We just wait and see. It can
    > happen tomorrow or some time later.

Overall, there are so many advantages to living near the ocean that they
outweigh the risk of an occasional massive disaster. That's why people
build near the ocean even though it can be the source of terrible storms
and tsunami. When the ocean is calm, it's a boundless source of food
for the body and pleasure for the senses; it's no surprise that people
want to live near it, even after it has misbehaved.

Similarly, volcanoes occasionally erupt; but the rest of the time, they
are surrounded by very fertile soil.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Icono Clast

Markku Grönroos wrote:
    > in California everything man made is built (several nuclear plants
    > among others) on a giant tectonic fault. There is potential there
    > for a catastrophy which makes the recent earthquake to appear as a
    > minor incident. We just wait and see. It can happen tomorrow

You're correct, of course. The San Andreas is the largest, and
potentially the most powerful, fault on the planet.

There's a significant difference 'tween a 'quake here and elsewhere.
'Quakes with intensities that would do little more than knock things
offa shelves here kill thousands elsewhere for one very simple
reason: We have very good building codes that are strictly enforced.

The Loma Prieta 'quake of '89 killed fewer than a hundred people. One
after, of far lesser intensity in Turkey, killed fourteen thousand.
Turkey has the same building codes as we; Turkey does (well, did) not
have the same enforcement of those codes as we.

Yes, when we have a 'quake of the intensity of '06, thousands will
die and I, living closer than three miles to the fault, will probably
be one of 'em. Were the San Andreas to shift as powerfully as the one
near Sumatra did a few days ago (the whole island moved fifty feet),
it's probable that millions would be homeless and perhaps hundreds of
thousands would die.
__________________________________________________ __________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

The Rev Gaston

On 2005-01-01 12:08:34 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:

    > Markku Grönroos writes:
    >
    >> It can be seen as a serious effort to stress that man shouldn't poke his
    >> nose quite everywhere. This sort of accident and of this magnitude is
    >> extremely rare though (occurs worldwide perhaps once a millenium). Pompeii
    >> and a couple of other towns went flat on the base of Vesuvius recently (less
    >> than 2000 years ago). These mighty eruptions happen every now and then in
    >> many regions in the world (for instance the archipelago of Indonesia
    >> (mostly) is built on them). I just don't know whether man has learned his
    >> lesson about the elements. Today at the site resides city of Naples whose
    >> population is counted in millions...... Similarly in California everything
    >> man made is built (several nuclear plants among others) on a giant tectonic
    >> fault. There is potential there for a catastrophy which makes the recent
    >> earthquake to appear as a minor incident. We just wait and see. It can
    >> happen tomorrow or some time later.
    >
    > Overall, there are so many advantages to living near the ocean that they
    > outweigh the risk of an occasional massive disaster. That's why people
    > build near the ocean even though it can be the source of terrible storms
    > and tsunami. When the ocean is calm, it's a boundless source of food
    > for the body and pleasure for the senses; it's no surprise that people
    > want to live near it, even after it has misbehaved.
    >
    > Similarly, volcanoes occasionally erupt; but the rest of the time, they
    > are surrounded by very fertile soil.

There was a TV series a while ago in which a guy tried to "live off the
land" in a variety of different settings. The only place where he
managed to eat enough was by the coast. Obvioulsy the experiment is not
perfect, but I think it illustrates why people live by the sea.

G;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Icono Clast

Miss L. Toe wrote:
    > Are you saying that the disaster relief funds are short of money ?
    > If so how much are they short by ?

The amount you haven't yet contributed.


Sarah Banick writes:
    >> Nothing is black and white; you'd really have to examine each
    >> organization's financial statements to determine if their
    >> administrative costs are not acceptable to you.

Here's a page, CHARITY, with links to information:

http://geocities.com/iconoc/Articles/Charity.html
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Mxsmanic

Icono Clast writes:

    > Yes, when we have a 'quake of the intensity of '06, thousands will
    > die and I, living closer than three miles to the fault, will probably
    > be one of 'em.

Not necessarily. You can stand on the fault as it shifts and not be
harmed. The harm comes from peripheral events such as buildings that
collapse, fires, tsunami (not a problem for an earthquake on land), and
so on. If you're just in an open field, you might have to hold on for a
bit, but that's all.

I do wonder why people live in San Francisco with its high incidence of
earthquakes, however. And I especially wonder why they built subway
tunnels beneath the bay knowing that earthquakes are a risk.

But I suppose the logic is the same as elsewhere: 99.9% of the time,
it's a safe place, and if it gets damaged by an earthquake, you can just
rebuild it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

IClast

[Server problem: File time 01:02]

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Icono Clast writes:
    >> Yes, when we have a 'quake of the intensity of '06, thousands
    >> will die and I, living closer than three miles to the fault,
    >> will probably be one of 'em.
    > Not necessarily.

Yes. If I'm not home or out of town or something.

    > You can stand on the fault as it shifts and not be harmed. The
    > harm comes from peripheral events such as buildings that collapse,
    > fires, tsunami (not a problem for an earthquake on land), and so
    > on. If you're just in an open field, you might have to hold on
    > for a bit, but that's all.

Never experienced an Earthquake, have you.

    > I do wonder why people live in San Francisco

It is, simply stated, THE BEST place to live in the known universe.
We have more retired diplomats living here, for example, than
anywhere else and the most modest of homes costs about eleven times
the average worker's pay.

    > with its high incidence of earthquakes, however. And I especially
    > wonder why they built subway tunnels beneath the bay knowing that
    > earthquakes are a risk.

Before construction of that subway, I used to say that, because of
the instability of the terrain, that there'd never be one built here.
Obviously I was wrong and it came through Loma Prieta just fine.

    > But I suppose the logic is the same as elsewhere: 99.9% of the
    > time, it's a safe place, and if it gets damaged by an earthquake,
    > you can just rebuild it.

Yes, and the fact that most Earthquakes do little structural damage
although they can wipe out a market's inventory.
__________________________________________________ __________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > Never experienced an Earthquake, have you.

Once, IIRC.

    > It is, simply stated, THE BEST place to live in the known universe.
    > We have more retired diplomats living here, for example, than
    > anywhere else and the most modest of homes costs about eleven times
    > the average worker's pay.

I don't see these as advantages.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Bb

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:49:02 -0000, Miss L. Toe wrote:

    > Hopefully it will get sufficient media attention in the USA to finally put
    > 11/9 into its proper perspective.

Not likely. When something happens outside your back door, you find it
more shocking than when it happens in some other part of the world.

None of that really matters anyway; this is not a time for gloating or
judging. A lot of us are making hefty private contributions, and thats a
good thing. I just wish those dollars could do more in these times.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

Icono Clast

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > [email protected] writes:
    >> It is, simply stated, THE BEST place to live in the known
    >> universe. We have more retired diplomats living here, for
    >> example, than anywhere else and the most modest of homes costs
    >> about eleven times the average worker's pay.
    >
    > I don't see these as advantages.

They're illustrations in support of the allegation. Why does that
have to be explained?
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Mxsmanic

Icono Clast writes:

    > They're illustrations in support of the allegation.

Is living among retired diplomats a good thing?

Is paying eleven times one's salary for the cheapest of homes a good
thing? My parents' home cost about 1.5 times my father's salary.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
[snip]
    > > I do wonder why people live in San Francisco
    > It is, simply stated, THE BEST place to live in the known universe.
[snip]

Then why did Hatunen leave?