Re: Ed, you'd be better off arguing with a slab of granite

"Sylvia" <sylvia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:sylvia-1662E9.10245329092007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well, no, it wasn't a "minor storm by any consideration" Ed. It was a
> mid-weight tropical storm. But, being struck by a tropical storm is
> *not* the same as being struck by a hurricane.

Poor insane Slyvia just repeats the same lies over and over.

Haddad did not say a hurricane "struck" Norfolk.

He said that a hurricane approached Norfolk: "I was in Norfolk, Virginia
stationed on an aircraft carrier during **the approach** of a hurricane."


<snip insane ranting>


> Here, again, is *my* source, Ed (the United States Government's National
> Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's page on Late Twentieth Century
> Storms in the State of Virginia). See if you can find proof of a
> hurricane striking Virginia during the 1970's there:
>
> http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/valate20hur.htm


You really have to read this stuff to realize how insane poor insane
Slyvia
is. She has provided right here a link to a page called

"Virginia Hurricane History: 1951-1999"

and challenges you to "find proof of a hurricane striking Virginia during
the 1970's."

On the page called "Virginia Hurricane History" there is a list of 7
hurricanes that struck Virginia during the 1970s-- Alma, Doria, Ginger.
Agnes, Eloise, Belle and David.

Perhaps however the mere list of hurricanes from the 1970s on the page
called Virginia Hurricane History is an unsufficient quantum of proof that
any hurricanes struck VA in the 70s. I mean, just because there's a list
of
hurricanes from the 1970s on a page called Virginia Hurricane History
probably doesn't mean that the hurricanes on the page Virginia Hurricane
History actually had some sort of history having to do with Virginia. It
could be a clever ruse.

So let's check

The entry for Doria says:

"Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at Norfolk, 59 mph at Wallops Island,
and 60 mph at Langley Air Force Base. A large warehouse near the Norfolk
air****t experienced severe damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a
tornado as it tracked through ****tsmouth and Chesapeake. Hundreds of trees
fell and a dozen homes were damaged."

So on the page "Virginia Hurricane History" an article about a storm
called
Doria cites "severe damage" to a "large warehouse" near "the Norfolk
air****t" which is presumably in Virginia. The article about Doria on the
"Virginia Hurricane History" page notes that "hundreds of trees fell."

And yet this is Slyvia's source, where she challenges Ed to find proof.
That a storm struck Virginia.

There seems to be ample proof.

Does this mean that Slyvia is completely dishonest? Or is she merely too
stupid to understand simple english words.

The latter.

Just for ****s and gigs, I created a composite jpg that
juxtaposes poor insane Slyvia's self created diagram of all the hurricanes
that allegedly struck the US in the entire decade of the 1970s with a
diagram of hurricane activity in the Atlantic for just one year, 1971. It
shows clearly what a ridiculously dishonest dope Slyvia is.

http://www.theweasels.com/insaneslyvia.jpg



<snip insane ranting>


>   "Note that to rip a huge tree out of the ground and hurl it
>     the length of a football field, especially with the drag of
>    'damaging cars along the way' before landing it on top of
>     his car, Haddad's Fantasy Hurricane would need the
>     strength of a CAT 5 hurricane: winds at *over* 155 MPH. "
>
> See how that's a *lot* different than your "it managed to uproot trees"
> bit, Ed? He wasn't the least bit "ambiguous" in his description, now was
> he? Ray Haddad got you to fight his fight again and he made a fool of
> you again, Ed.

Here's what Haddad said:  "I discovered a tree had fallen smack  into the
middle of my car which was parked over 100 yards from the tree on the base
at Norfolk. A clearly defined path showed where it traversed the parking
lot
damaging cars along the way."


Haddad's "a tree" becomes "a huge tree." Instead of having "fallen" it has
been "hurled." And thus for this "huge" tree to be "hurled," why the winds
would have to be over 155 miles per hour!!!!


Except, here's an article from the CBC that describes a "thunderstorm"
with
60 and 100 KPH winds that "uprooted trees."

"Environment Canada says a severe storm that blew through a small
community
west of Fredericton this week was not a tornado. The twister-like storm
hit
near Zealand on Tuesday night. It uprooted trees, [...] Environment Canada
meteorologist Claude Coté surveyed the destruction on Wednesday and said
it
was caused by winds between 60 and 100 km/h [...] it was the result of a
strong downdraft from a thunderstorm"

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/07/12/nb-tornadotouchdown.html

60 to 100 KPH is aboot 40 to 60 MPH.

So Environment Canada says that trees can be uprooted by 40 MPH winds.
Whereas Slyvia claims that it takes nearly 200 mph winds to knock a tree
over. Who to believe? A meteorologist from Environment Canada? Or the
person
who can't find evidence of a hurricane striking Virginia on a web page
called Viginia Hurricane History.

You make the call.