Cyclone death toll could reach 100,000

The worst natural disaster since the 2004 tsunami keeps getting worse:

Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, said 100,000 people had probably been killed, with a large number of others unaccounted for, in a “humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions”. He said that Burma’s junta would “compound the disaster” by denying access to relief groups.

“This is not about politics, this is about helping people in need. And the junta should please open its doors and let the international community provide humanitarian assistance to the people in Burma because they need it desperately.”

Dr. Jeff Masters has more, noting that Cyclone Nargis "took the worst possible track, passing directly over the densely populated and low lying Irrawaddy River delta," and also "came at the worst time possible, during the winter bora rice crop harvest." So the storm's toll will be compounded by further food shortages at a time when the price of rice is already sky-high.

Masters also writes:

In one city alone--Bogalay, about 50 miles southwest of the capital of Yangon--10,000 people are thought to have died. Bogalay is a decrepit city of 100,000 that lies at the head of a estuary that leads to the sea. No doubt this narrow waterway served to funnel a storm surge over ten feet high into the city.

Yikes.

Comments

[Andrew]

Hey copndor, are we allowed to be outraged yet? Or must we cover ourselves in ash and sackcloth a few more days to appease your condescending sense of morality?

[copndor]

Great, another thread for you to offer no arguments and call names.

[Andrew]

I haven't called you any names yet, idiot. (Now I have.)

I responded to your final moronic comments in the previous post, but due to the links in the comment, the comment filter decided it was spam and so it is probably sitting in one of Brendan's inboxes waiting for his approval to post.

In any case, both David and I made points and arguments in the previous thread, to which you barely acknowledged, and you made virtually no effort to rebut them -- instead you just whined that I was being a meanie. So in addition to being a condescending moralist prick trying to make some lame case that there's something wrong with me for wishing the military junta was destroyed by the cyclone, you're a master at projection as well.

[Joe Mama]

Heard on the radio driving to work this morning that the generals in charge in Myanmar are reportedly hoarding the relief supplies coming in and not letting any foreign relief personnel into the country to aid the victims. If that's true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then the people in charge of that country are disgusting, and I wish they were wiped out by the cyclone as well, instead of the poor victims suffering under their boot.

[copndor]

I was wondering how long it would take Andrew to make the "my post with the arguments in it was swallowed up by the spam filter" excuse.
Countdown: It has been 214 posts since Andrew has made an actual argument.

[Brendan]

Here's Andrew's spam-filtered post, which he tried to post at 10:07 PM Tuesday night. I didn't see it until now, because, annoyingly enough, I don't actually get an e-mail notifying me when something has been caught by the filter. Anyway...

You're basically admitting that you're unwilling and unable to engage in an argument.

I'm admitting nothing except that I think you're a moron. I substantively rebutted your points above, and instead of responding to my points, you got upset because I called you names. Wah wah wah. Here's a tissue.

Then you say that the reason why you don't give reasons is because I'm an "idiot," which, I'll point out, is still not a reason.

First, I gave substantive reasons for why your position is idiotic. Second, pointing out that you're an idiot is plenty reason to shut down a debate. If someone asks me to debate a pig, and I say, "I'm not 'debating' a farm animal!", that's indeed a self-standing reason. You can request elaboration, but I'd like to think you're smart enough to draw the right inferences about why the opponent being a farm animal is enough to justify not debating.

It's just name-calling. You're clearly not up to par at making actual arguments.

No, I make arguments and point out why your arguments are idiotic, and I call you an idiot. This is not an either/or proposition; I can, do, and will do both. Idiot.

You demonstrate this after every attempted argument by punctuating it with some name-calling since the argument itself holds little weight.

As I just stated, you're the one who is not responding to my points (nor David's, for that matter). I have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness and ability to engage your weak-ass arguments, and you've repeatedly whined about the name-calling in response. Nevertheless, my assholishness has no bearing on the merits of the points I've expressed, so calling out the fact that I am being mean to you does not suffice as a refutation of my logic. Enough with your bitching already, if you think my points aren't valid, explain yourself and refute me line-by-line like I've been doing to you.