posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
I am sorry man, but you know it is true.
I mean no quarrel, but you deserve a class in civility.
That high horse you rode in on must be getting tired by now. Try giving it a rest.
Being an old horse it can go on for a very long time. It does not suffer from the boredom of youth!
You know that I know that a mag 5, and even less can be not only a problem but sometimes fatal in the wrong circumstances.
TA has a thread running on this and it is not in my opinion necessary to duplicate threads in this manner. Each earthquake needs to be looked at in
it's own circumstances. This particular one was not of great significance. Had it been on the triple junction it might have been. We had a 6.0 today
(the one being discussed here was a 6.1) Why is the 6.0 of any less significance than the 6.1. Why is there no thread about that one? Because it was
not somewhere near Tokyo?
As a matter of interest, and this is a genuine question, how much damage was sustained purely from the 9.0 earthquake. There was a huge amount of
damage from the tsunami, but other than the damage to the power stations nothing much seems to have been said about structural damage.
They do build to withstand earthquakes, may be not 9.0 ones, but certainly up to 7.5. For this reason, unless there is a tsunami risk or there is some
other circumstance of location, then a quake at that place and depth was not significant.
This all started because you said Japan was crumbling into the seas and then tried to pass that off as a metaphor.
As a metaphor it was not a good one, and any comment like that can lead the more sensitive readers to get worried when they need not.
I guess we wrong footed each other on this one, and I will take a good portion of the blame for that. I was being and feeling grumpy.
So, on that note whilst I still think your metaphor was bad I apologise that it has led to us fighting it out on the thread.