Current Events

TOPICS:

9/2/05
9/1/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

218 | 219 | 220

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

AUG 30, 2005 10:31 PM

They have to fix New Orleans. I don't think there's anywhere else like it.

akl

akl

Sacramento, CA
February 2004

AUG 30, 2005 10:53 PM

I wanted to go to New Orleans one day. I hope I'll still get the chance.

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

AUG 30, 2005 10:54 PM

adam_ said:
I wanted to go to New Orleans one day. I hope I'll still get the chance.


Sure you will. NOLA 2.0

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

AUG 30, 2005 10:56 PM

NOLA 2.0...

It's New Orleans, washed with dirty water and cleaner than ever!

Maxx

maxx

Los Angeles, CA
July 2002

AUG 30, 2005 10:58 PM

Keith said:

adam_ said:
I wanted to go to New Orleans one day. I hope I'll still get the chance.


Sure you will. NOLA 2.0


Newer Orleans

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 30, 2005 10:58 PM

Andvari said:

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

burning_bright said:
christ.

that's just scary.

the question is, andvari: will there be any new orleans left?



That's what I mean. Since it is in such a precarious place to start with, might it not be better to leave well enough alone. Or at least fill in the portions that are below sea level before rebuilding.



Ummm, being savaged by one of the most powerful natural disasters on record is hardly precarious. It happens. Its nature. Are we not supposed to live in Iowa because of flooding, or LA because of earthquakes or NY because of blizzards? Where exactly are we supposed to go?



I mean the being below sea level part.

Living below sea level whilst on the coast is precarious.



New Orleans isn't on the coast. Its 40 miles inland. The water is coming from a lake and a river.

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

AUG 30, 2005 10:59 PM

Maxx said:

Keith said:

adam_ said:
I wanted to go to New Orleans one day. I hope I'll still get the chance.


Sure you will. NOLA 2.0


Newer Orleans


Zing.

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 30, 2005 11:02 PM

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

burning_bright said:
christ.

that's just scary.

the question is, andvari: will there be any new orleans left?



That's what I mean. Since it is in such a precarious place to start with, might it not be better to leave well enough alone. Or at least fill in the portions that are below sea level before rebuilding.



Ummm, being savaged by one of the most powerful natural disasters on record is hardly precarious. It happens. Its nature. Are we not supposed to live in Iowa because of flooding, or LA because of earthquakes or NY because of blizzards? Where exactly are we supposed to go?



I mean the being below sea level part.

Living below sea level whilst on the coast is precarious.



New Orleans isn't on the coast. Its 40 miles inland. The water is coming from a lake and a river.



Very well then. Living below water level whilst sandwiched between a lake and a river is precarious.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 30, 2005 11:15 PM

Andvari said:

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

burning_bright said:
christ.

that's just scary.

the question is, andvari: will there be any new orleans left?



That's what I mean. Since it is in such a precarious place to start with, might it not be better to leave well enough alone. Or at least fill in the portions that are below sea level before rebuilding.



Ummm, being savaged by one of the most powerful natural disasters on record is hardly precarious. It happens. Its nature. Are we not supposed to live in Iowa because of flooding, or LA because of earthquakes or NY because of blizzards? Where exactly are we supposed to go?



I mean the being below sea level part.

Living below sea level whilst on the coast is precarious.



New Orleans isn't on the coast. Its 40 miles inland. The water is coming from a lake and a river.



Very well then. Living below water level whilst sandwiched between a lake and a river is precarious.



And living in any flood plain is precarious, and living where the temperatures get to 118 or -65 is precarious, and living where there are earthquakes or tornadoes or wildfires or mudslides or you can get 17 inches of snow in an hour and a half is precarious.

Which was my point. The problem here isn't the location, its the 140 mile an hour winds that destroyed a six foot thick concrete flood wall and the fact that the water level of the lake is several feet above where it was before the storm. What you're saying is like pretending that you shouldn't walk down the street because its next to where the cars are and you could get hit. Unfortunately, you have to walk somewhere.

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 30, 2005 11:17 PM

reprobate said:
And living in any flood plain is precarious, and living where the temperatures get to 118 or -65 is precarious, and living where there are earthquakes or tornadoes or wildfires or mudslides or you can get 17 inches of snow in an hour and a half is precarious.

Which was my point. The problem here isn't the location, its the 140 mile an hour winds that destroyed a six foot thick concrete flood wall and the fact that the water level of the lake is several feet above where it was before the storm. What you're saying is like pretending that you shouldn't walk down the street because its next to where the cars are and you could get hit. Unfortunately, you have to walk somewhere.



sigh....ok reprobate. We can fight if that will make you feel better.


[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by Andvari]

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 30, 2005 11:25 PM

Andvari said:

reprobate said:
And living in any flood plain is precarious, and living where the temperatures get to 118 or -65 is precarious, and living where there are earthquakes or tornadoes or wildfires or mudslides or you can get 17 inches of snow in an hour and a half is precarious.

Which was my point. The problem here isn't the location, its the 140 mile an hour winds that destroyed a six foot thick concrete flood wall and the fact that the water level of the lake is several feet above where it was before the storm. What you're saying is like pretending that you shouldn't walk down the street because its next to where the cars are and you could get hit. Unfortunately, you have to walk somewhere.



sigh....ok reprobate. We can fight if that will make you feel better.


[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by Andvari]



Well, I might be a little less touchy if:

a) I wasn't 500 miles from home hoping my house was still there
and
b) You actually made a cogent, informed point.

You're telling me that I should just walk away from my home when you don't actually know where the city even is. You live in Calgary for Christ's sake, which last I checked was pretty inhospitable to human life without massive technological intervention

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 30, 2005 11:45 PM

reprobate said:

Andvari said:

reprobate said:
And living in any flood plain is precarious, and living where the temperatures get to 118 or -65 is precarious, and living where there are earthquakes or tornadoes or wildfires or mudslides or you can get 17 inches of snow in an hour and a half is precarious.

Which was my point. The problem here isn't the location, its the 140 mile an hour winds that destroyed a six foot thick concrete flood wall and the fact that the water level of the lake is several feet above where it was before the storm. What you're saying is like pretending that you shouldn't walk down the street because its next to where the cars are and you could get hit. Unfortunately, you have to walk somewhere.



sigh....ok reprobate. We can fight if that will make you feel better.


[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by Andvari]



Well, I might be a little less touchy if:

a) I wasn't 500 miles from home hoping my house was still there
and


First of all, let me extend my condolences on the difficult situation you are. The internet brings home the immediacy of a disaster like nothing else and it must be very painful having this unfold around you and not be able to do anything about it. I hope that your family and friends are safe.


b) You actually made a cogent, informed point.



My only real point is that when the inevitable rebuidling begins it might be prudent to examine the location or the design of the city and see if better arrangements can't be made. I don't think New Orlean's location was in any way the cause of its difficulties, but it certainly exacerbated them.


You're telling me that I should just walk away from my home when you don't actually know where the city even is. You live in Calgary for Christ's sake, which last I checked was pretty inhospitable to human life without massive technological intervention



We are similiarly misinfomed then. wink
Calgary may be excessively boring, but if you've mastered fire you can live here pretty easily. It's just that no one really wants to come here unless they're drawn to the oil jobs.

xRedDan

xRedDan

Valparaiso, IN
December 2003

AUG 30, 2005 11:55 PM

Edit because Gwendolyn forgets to log-in sometimes.

[Edited on Aug 30, 2005 by xRedDan]

Gwendolyn

Gwendolyn

SUICIDEGIRL

Indiana, USA

AUG 30, 2005 11:56 PM

I am drunk, as such, I should stay away from the current events boards.

[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by Gwendolyn]

Michael_J_Totten

Michael_J_Totten

Iraq
February 2004

AUG 31, 2005 12:07 AM

Andvari said:
Very well then. Living below water level whilst sandwiched between a lake and a river is precarious.


New Orleans is threatened by wind and water. Oregon (where I live) is threatned by earth and fire.

I'm not moving. Where am I supposed to go? Name a "safe" place and I'll name a hazard.

venomkid

venomkid

I'm lost
January 2003

AUG 31, 2005 12:17 AM

Maxx said:

Keith said:

adam_ said:
I wanted to go to New Orleans one day. I hope I'll still get the chance.


Sure you will. NOLA 2.0


Newer Orleans



Ohdamn.

InfinityPerfect++ Reply Bonus.

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 31, 2005 12:17 AM

Michael_J_Totten said:

Andvari said:
Very well then. Living below water level whilst sandwiched between a lake and a river is precarious.


New Orleans is threatened by wind and water. Oregon (where I live) is threatned by earth and fire.

I'm not moving. Where am I supposed to go? Name a "safe" place and I'll name a hazard.



This is ignoring degrees. I agree that every place has a hazard, but saying that every hazard is equal is just as incorrect as saying that any place can have no hazard at all.

Wallace

Wallace

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

AUG 31, 2005 12:58 AM

wow, thanks for filling me in on this - i have no tv & haven't recently been in the habit of frequenting news sites or radio stations, so i had no idea anything was going on down there.
anyhow, goddamn, this is awful! i hope florida will be okay (i have family there). i'm so sad & worried now.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

AUG 31, 2005 03:50 AM

Andvari said:
My only real point is that when the inevitable rebuidling begins it might be prudent to examine the location or the design of the city and see if better arrangements can't be made. I don't think New Orlean's location was in any way the cause of its difficulties, but it certainly exacerbated them.


Look, the city isn't gone, it's underwater, and it's not even entirely underwater. That part of the city will have to be rebuilt is a given, but it's absurd to suggest that the entire city should be razed and rebuilt 20 feet higher to protect against what is essentially a once in a lifetime disaster. New Orleans, with it's existing levees (once rebuilt) would be able to withstand anything short of this severity of a storm. Simply looking at the cost/benefit of what you're proposing should tell you that the cost, effort, and disruption such an utterly massive beyond comprehension construction project would impose upon the city would place it well outside of the realm of being worthwhile.

The reason people are equating the danger of this happening in New Orleans and the dangers of other natural disasters in other places is that the danger is equivalent. You simply cannot make a city 100% safe from every possible danger, and to attempt to do so would result in a boondoggle of colossal proportions. The point is, the city is 99.99% safe with the existing structures, and you're suggesting that it should be rebuilt, quite literally from the ground up, to cover that last .01% of danger.

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

AUG 31, 2005 04:05 AM

one of these would be nice



[Edited on Aug 31, 2005 by GramNegative]

DragoD

DragoD

Berkeley, CA
January 2005

SEP 01, 2005 01:33 PM

- graphitti

sweet knaw lins/ in our prayer / where / we learned / to /dance.

fats domino is missing?



[Edited on Sep 01, 2005 by DragoD]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next