5/16 Salon article on Storm Chasing (1st of 4)

[Mike Johnson]

Yes, this thread should be ended. It’s beginning to read like the old wx-chase group. This kind of hatred and poison does nothing to further chasing.

However, the legal advise provided is somewhat incorrect and needs to be corrected. You cannot print (libel) or speak (slander) FALSE information about anyone, in an editorial or elsewhere. You can say for example "Joe Blow's wife looks like a cow," or "I don't like Joe Blow's storm research," (yes - personal opinions are protected), but you cannot say "Joe Blow beats his wife" or "Joe Blow fakes his research" -- without causing harm to the individual based on false statements. The best examples of this are articles published in tabloids. They are often successfully sued by celebrities, etc. The bottom line is what motivates someone to do such things. Book publishers and magazines are very aware of the dangers of libel and that's why most of them do a lot of editing and fact checking before printing something. (My wife used to work for a New Mexico newspaper as a fact checker). Then again, I would not want to be sued because of the expense to defend myself -- right or wrong.

As someone else posted, the moderators refuse to stop the attacks on certain individuals, so it's up to us to police these threads.

Mike

 

[Joe Nield]

Back to the original topic, when does the fourth article come out?

...and why is it that whenever anything here goes a tick beyond shiny happy people holding hands, the cries for the mods to step in immediately start?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

However, the legal advise provided is somewhat incorrect and needs to be corrected. You cannot print (libel) or speak (slander) FALSE information about anyone, in an editorial or elsewhere. You can say for example "Joe Blow's wife looks like a cow," or "I don't like Joe Blow's storm research," (yes - personal opinions are protected), but you cannot say "Joe Blow beats his wife" or "Joe Blow fakes his research" -- without causing harm to the individual based on false statements. The best examples of this are articles published in tabloids. They are often successfully sued by celebrities, etc.

Actually, most of the time, if you're writing about a public figure, you can. You certainly shouldn't, but you're much more likely to get away with it. Celebrities rarely win their lawsuits against tabloids. (One of the reasons for this is that tabloids have the best lawyers that money can buy.) Another reason is because it is incredibly hard to meet the level of proof needed to show libel against a public figure, and tabloids know just how far they can push the line. Public figures are specifically singled out by the law to be less protected against libel than everyone else. Sure, they can win libel lawsuits but even with their highly paid celebrity lawyers, it's really hard for them to do. I'm not sure if Warren would be considered a public figure or not, but he certainly does do a lot of national television media gigs and has been a #1 bestseller before. I guess my point is that you sound kinda silly when you start publicly waiving around threats of lawsuits. People with real power rarely need to shout. If you're going to sue Amos and the guy who wrote Big Weather, than do it. You don't need to tell us about it. Trust me, nobody here cares.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and you should seek legal advice from an attorney.

BTW, the moderators do a great job around here. Don't knock 'em. It's not like they get paid anything to clean up our messes. And most people here a pretty civil bunch of people, if for no other reason than we all run into each other out on backcountry roads each May.

 

[Andrew Geil]

. You can say for example "Joe Blow's wife looks like a cow," or "I don't like Joe Blow's storm research," (yes - personal opinions are protected), but you cannot say "Joe Blow beats his wife" or "Joe Blow fakes his research" -- without causing harm to the individual based on false statements.

Mike

What if Joe Blow's cow fakes beating his wife while conducting research?

 

[Joe Nield]

. You can say for example "Joe Blow's wife looks like a cow," or "I don't like Joe Blow's storm research," (yes - personal opinions are protected), but you cannot say "Joe Blow beats his wife" or "Joe Blow fakes his research" -- without causing harm to the individual based on false statements.

Mike

What if Joe Blow's cow fakes beating his wife while conducting research?

Well, now, for that, you need a permit. :lol:

 

[Kiel Ortega]

Since there doesn't seem to be point to the thread anymore, I'll throw in my 0.02

Book sucks...he said "clash of the air masses", I got pissed and stopped reading. :lol:

No, I read the first couple of pages on amazon...it's really wordy (as I think it was described earlier)...though I am a little disappointed I am not in the book with my "I'm with Stupid shirt" (which I think I lost) and me and chase partners' endless "your mom..." jokes.

I am little curious at his fascination to classify the people out chasing. Who cares...do you go to the Grand Canyon and classify all of the people there? No...if people want to see something, they go where it is to see it. Seems like an easy concept...but I think he read a little to much into chasing (just what I got from the first 6 pages...amazon cut me off). Chasers are crazy...once everyone realizes this (including themselves), we can move on to more important things like "why driving into a tornado is stupid."

 

[Scott Olson]

Amos.... get a life buddy -- you are loosing control. .

You are more than entitled to your opinion but you have no right to insult anyone else.

-Scott Olson

 

[Mike Johnston]

Picked up Big Weather the other day and read it cover to cover. BTW - it was marked down already as some previous posts hinted. Although it was not the most well-written book, I found it held my interest. As someone who lived on the east coast for 18 years, and came back home to the plains this spring, taking up chasing as a new hobby, I could identify with many of his observations, and even with some of his more introspective thoughts. I doubt there was much new knowledge content for veteran chasers, and I'm not sure the book would hold the interest of the "general public" (whoever that is), but for those with a keen interest in weather and/or on the fringes of chasing, I thought it was a good read. In particular, the inclusion of several personalities who post on this board made the subject seem very up close. Most frustrating aspect was the disjointed flow of the book. He goes directly from a hair raising descriptive account of the Hallam, NE tragedy to a personal diatribe about why the Weather Channel should be more engaged in the political aspects of the global warming question - with no transition or reflection relating either subject back to the main topic of the book. I, too, found the classification of chasers as either 1) wild-eyed yahoos, or 2) bookish weather geeks a bit off-putting. So far, I have yet to meet a chaser this season who would fit squarely into either category. All in all, though, for someone just getting interested in the hobby, it is a good read.

 

[Andrew Kajfasz]

As already asked but not answered (you guys love to fight ), does anyone know when the fourth and final article comes out?

 

[Darren Addy]

It looks like they had TWO on 5/15:
"Tornado Lover" and "My First Twister".
Then "Riders on the Storm" on 5/20 and "Disaster Envy" on 5/25. That must be the four. Looks like I originally missed one of the ones that is now dated 5/15.

You can find links to all of them in the center column on this page:
http://www.salon.com/books/index.html?lid=...lpos=Col1_books

We now bring this thread to a merciful close (i hope). 8)

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Moderator note: Woops... this thread slipped through the cracks. Sorry!

Aaron