Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyDog
Some questions:
1) Why don't you consider the possibility that the information is true?
2) Why would you instantly want to imply the commenter is a liar? That is a stunning assertion regarding someone you've never met.
3) Why would you assume a several hundred mile, mountainous region has suffered the exact same impacts as the parts that were low-elevation and experienced the extreme flooding destruction?
Three questions, direct answers appreciated.
|
These search results might help.
The information is not true. The story is a lie.
Why would a mountainous region with rivers that overflowed after receiving 19+ inches of rain NOT experience the same impact as a low-elevation region with rivers that overflowed after receiving 19+ inches of rain? Mudslides or mud flows are both mud in the wrong place. Rushing water, upended trees, downed power lines all look the same in mountainous regions as the do in low-elevation regions.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY - Randallstown, MD - Yakima, WA - Stevensville, MD - Village of Hillsborough
|