check out this generous act of threadmanship,
Originally posted by hhcore
The Government should stand by the it's citizens, because if this was the result of cloud seeding - the Gov't. definitely had to have known about it,
and approved of it. As far as insurance companies are concerned, they excel at taking your money, but damn stingy on paying the piper when the time
comes. They should be extinguished for all they're worth.
this man made flood suggestion is incredibly unlikely. To be honest it is not even worth discussing in a formal situation. To be fair I would be happy
to help anyone who wanted to disprove the theory for themselves from some tests. Just PM me.
Originally posted by questcequecest
this makes me feel physically sick, it really does. one day i will commit suicide over something like this
theres no point in living when this sort of crap goes on, seriously
the system is that far gone.
i know you are kidding, dont be too upset by this. But more importantly, do not place too much emphasis on the media interpretation of the handling of
the flood, specifically the type that paints the picture that the "system" is corrupt or failed or other alarmest angle. The overwhelming majority of
people involved in the systems dealing with the public in general have exceptional integrity and truly want to make impact that is in the best
interest of the public. This is seldom covered in the media. The type of thing that makes it to the TV are the instances where the system is "crap" ..
The notion that the system is systematically crap (ie. across the board) is far from the truth
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They'd better pay.
Or else this government is finished, and insurers will be beaten to death outside their homes.
The majority of Australian public will make their opinion based on the bigger picture. I would also think they will be judged on how they made a
massive impact in the recovery despite the fact they did not have to strong arm the insurance companies into paying out all policy holders regardless
of flood or no flood cover.
Originally posted by OneLife
Wow, just wow. The selling out of the human race by the wealthier. Sickeningly profound. I only hope what's taken from them and everyone else in the
world is given back tenfold one day.
again, the notion that the "people in power" (in corporate world or government) are systemically unethical, greedy, uncaring (or other) is not true.
To prove this, all that one needs to do is to perhaps talk to someone on the board of directors of top companys in Australia. Ask them to discuss
their "vision" or personal philosophies on what they are doing. Then be explicit and ask them how they can justify this in light of the fact they are
also supposed to make a profit for their company. Assess how genuine they are in their response. You will find a few that fit the mold of one of these
evil people but the majority are not. The type of answers you will receive will blow your mind (in a good way
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Vitchilo
LMAO .... "over flowing rivers are not floods" .. what the hell is a flood then?
I hate insurance.. we would solve so much of the worlds problems by making every form of insurance illegal!!
it indeed is easy to hate. There clearly is a disconnect between those in insurance companies and the average person with no understanding of
I think their is a misconception that their role in society is to safeguard against widespread disasters in addition to small or one off incidents of
damage. Indeed for them it is a gambling game but there are practical limitations to the scope. Beyond the limitation it is not financially viable.
There simply is not enough capitol to cover this. The definitions of floods I believe has the function of formally categorizing events that are part
of a large scale nature and those that are of a more localised in nature. The use of technical definitions for a water incursion is the defining
component, it makes the assessment process "water tight" (pardon the pun) with little room for ambiguity from a scientific point of view.
In saying all this, it is incredibly unfortunate for the victims. But what happens is these victims will provide a wealth experience to the general
public. This is critical experience that is fundamental to improve the overall resilience of our habitation to endure large scale disasters. It is
what forces a paradigm shift for the benefit of all.
Another point not related any post thus far is loss/benefit aspect of such a disasters. I put forward the following thought provoking idea, how many
flood victims have gained more than they have lost by the floods? It is the sort of idea discussed in relation to fire gutting a home. Some tell
stories of the purgings that results in a "rebirth" in life. All those old possessions, ones that tie in to negative times in our life. An anchor that
is dragged along, stopping us from moving on to new chapters. I actually have a number in mind (ie. the ratio of those who will benefit more than
they will lose). But I am not going to share this
edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: word change
edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: word add