Open letter from Chuck Doswell

[Jesse Risley]

This all goes back to letting everybody do as they please. I'll chase my way, you chase your way. As long as we do that nobody has any problems. I think my way of chasing is responsible, maybe you don't, but until you start paying the bills I'm not going to put a whole lot of weight in what you say. Chuck was the one that came out and decided to start criticizing another group of chasers and trivializing their deaths (making comments about them getting killed). It seems like a lot of chasers are so damn worried about how other people might make them look. That's ridiculous IMO. Are you really that afraid that another chaser speeding might tarnish your reputation? If something that unlikely and insignificant makes you worry then it's time to lighten up IMO. There are bigger tragedies in the world than me going 15mph over the speed limit on an open highway trying to catch up to a tornado.
I am not getting wrapped up in another one of these arguments, so along with Chuck, this is all I'm going to say.

Mikey,

I must respectfully disagree with this statement to some extent. I'm not really sure what Doswell said that ignited such a debate, so my post isn't a reflection or comment on his words.

However, I've always maintained that any community is judged by the actions of its members. I might add that I agree that there is a difference between 10 mph over the limit on an open highway, versus blowing through a small town at a high rate of speed. I'm not trying to debate the merits of specific offenses. Heck, I've even been guilty of speeding (within reason) on open highways during a chase.

However, shouldn't WE, as chasers, be concerned about the image that WE present to the general public and law enforcement? A negative public perception will only end up hurting the chasing community in the end. I'm all for individual liberty, but at some point I think one has to consider the good of the cause/community too.

I've had this conversation with several folks in law enforcement, and while not a specific problem here in my home region, everyone that I spoke with seems to agree that a perception of storm chasers in a negative manner will most likely lead to zero tolerance enforcement for any traffic offense in those areas where such a perception exists. In short, I don't want to see the chasing community "targeted" or dealt a heavy hand because a small number of chasers engage in blatantly reckless driving behaviors.

 

[cedwards]

I haven't been paying attentions, so I don't know what all the controversy was on here, but I have one comment on THIS thread.

The comments that set off this whole deal were made by Chuck and others at a public speaking event, on blogs, and on forums. Those are all arenas open to public view (for the most part). Those comments weren't made directly to the "yahoos" in question.

Chuck's views on the yahoo chaser have been know for many years. longer than most of you have been around chasing and longer than most chasers have had email. He was not unnecessarily talking about one individual, but a behavior by a group of chasers, some of whose identity may or may not have been known. It is one thing to criticize one persons activities directly to the person, it is another to criticize the activities of a group of people. In that case, it is fitting to criticize it in a public way.

 

[Bob Schafer]

This thread has veered way off-topic. Nothing particularly surprising about that, since many... most... controversial threads do. To refresh, Dr Doswell publicly expressed a desire for Darwinian outcomes to yahoos. (paraphrased)

If you know Dr Doswell at all you are better equipped to form an opinion about this sentiment. (hint, hint) I'll leave it at that.

 

[Terry Tyler]

Dr Doswell publicly expressed a desire for Darwinian outcomes to yahoos. (paraphrased)

so whats the big debate about?

its that guys personal opinion, and hes got a right to voice it...

it doesnt matter if he really is stuck up, and looks down on people cause of their socio-economic status or chasing abilities...everyone here has their own opinions, and i think people trip too hard on em...

if my opinions were worth as much as this dudes, i would start writing all kinds of crazy stuff, and get a sponsor or something...

 

[David Hoadley]

I am obliged to comment here on Chuck Doswell's "Open letter" and other remarks about my comparative reticence in recent years.

First, regarding Chuck's letter. I don't know what the topic of his forthcoming talk is and haven't followed any of the brouhaha it generated. Our acquaintance goes back several decades, and I have great respect for both his professional accomplishments and concerns about storm chasing. If Chuck's candor and
opinions stir the pot, that is just his way. His views spring from a deep appreciation for the beauty of the sky --and a sense of
responsibility to the community of chasers to speak out, when he sees something wrong. Let us be thankful that someone of his stature and busy life gives a damn and takes the time to do so! Not all of us veterans who should --do.

Regarding my own online silence (and yes, am somewhat computer challenged), I offer the following.

As one grows older, priorities change. At age 69, I still enjoy storm chasing and eagerly look forward to it each spring. However and with time, I am less concerned about what the *latest new controversy* is or the taking of sides, when the rush to judgement gets ahead of thoughtful reflection and common sense. Likewise, seeing my thoughts posted online is less important (and hate starting to repeat myself!).

I do read these posts but usually find that what I would say eventually gets said by others --and hope that cooler heads prevail. I will not hesitate to comment, if a consensus emerges with which I disagree. However, most issues that are raised here and elsewhere won't be around a year from now, or five, or whenever. In a few months, we will stand before the great wall cloud, in the clear warm prairie wind that will carry us away to another place...

 

[Fabian Guerra]

I do read these posts but usually find that what I would say eventually gets said by others --and hope that cooler heads prevail. I will not hesitate to comment, if a consensus emerges with which I disagree. However, most issues that are raised here and elsewhere won't be around a year from now, or five, or whenever. In a few months, we will stand before the great wall cloud, in the clear warm prairie wind that will carry us away to another place..

David, you hit it on the head as far as I'm concerned. I would say that most of us share a strong common bond...the love of storms and tornadoes and the passion to go out and expereince them every spring. I don't exactly know how my post relates to the big topic at hand but I'm sitting here in ice, sleet and cold just thinking how nice it will be to travel the plains again in '08 in search of nature's most spectacular creations. Mr. Hoadley, thanks again for gently reminding us why Stormtrack is here in the first place.

 

[SteveCarter]

Three things here....... WHY was this "open letter" posted on ST in the first place? What is the POINT, or goals to be achieved by putting Doswell's letter out there? Isn't this just adding fuel to the embers, and at the same time....giving Doswell even more controversy? Apparantly Dowsell WANTS the controversy. He said himself he chose the title of his speech to PROVOKE people. (his word was provocative) So now, he gets just what he wanted by having his letter (advertisement) slapped across ST. Secondly.......Doswell has complained about stormchasers for YEARS, way back to 1999 he was giving speeches about the "dangerous", "irresponsible" stormchasers, who parked in the roads, left doors open to close to the road, etc etc etc etc. This is NOT something new from him. Thirdly......Doswell stated that he would NEVER become a member of ST. Ok...fine, but why bother to worry about, express an opinion, or write an "open letter" for the members to read that he would NEVER be a part of? This makes NO sense to me......at all. He says he would never become a part of ST, but yet his open letter gets plastered across ST. Since ST is something that he would NEVER become a part of, why Tim, are you allowing him to use ST to express ANYTHING? Should we REALLY care what he has to say? I'm not to sure who I'm more surprised at...Doswell for even WRITING the letter to ST, or ST for allowing him to re-surface this issue. The guy obviously has his opinions, but so do I. And, IMHO....his letter should have been a CLOSED letter.

 

[rdale]

Should we REALLY care what he has to say?

Care? Up to you. Should we read it? I think so. He's clearly a groundbreaker in the field. He's at the top of the list. So something he does / knows / says got him there, we might as well read along...

And I don't think he's been anti-chaser. I think he's anti-Yahoo. Can you post some of the evidence you claim that he hates chasers?

 

[Joey Ketcham]

WHY was this "open letter" posted on ST in the first place? .

I have not paid very much attention to all that's been said in this discussion, but I do know that things have been said about Chuck Doswell in the past and even within this discussion and I think that it is only fair that Chuck is able to respond even if it's with an open letter.

Personally, I've read a lot of the essay's that Chuck wrote over the years and while I don't always agree with his opinions and philosophies on storm chasing I still respect them. Nothing good will ever come out of us sitting here throwing insults back and fourth, instead we need to meet somewhere in the middle with those we don't agree with and find out how we can make things work. Until we do that nothing will change and it will always be the same.

 

[Glen Romine]

Three things here....... WHY was this "open letter" posted on ST in the first place?

Steve, reading the letter, and awareness of the multiple threads on ST specifically naming Chuck and his Darwinism visions for yahoos at least in my opinion makes it fair for him to pass a statement out to those who are attacking him. Such attacks are supposed to be against ST rules:

3. Conduct. Stormtrack is not a venue for "free speech". Hostile or derisive language against a specific user is prohibited, whether expressed or implied. This constitutes a serious breach of our community standards, and will often result in suspension or expulsion. When debating, be civil at all times and attack the point, not the person. If you are attacked, desist and notify a moderator -- all participants in a flame war are subject to administrative action.

More generally, it used to be forbidden on ST to attack on individuals who are not members, but perhaps the enforcement of such things has slacked off these days. In the letter from Chuck, he specifically stated the tolerance of these types of attacks is the reason he wishes not to join ST. Also, it is certainly not the first time that content from a non-ST member has been posted here.

The delusion that ST is somehow a puppet to the wishes of CFDG is again a rather sad accusation that has popped up here and elsewhere, and once again the ST FAQ might be of use:

12. Content disclaimer. Although the owners of Stormtrack have discretion to delete offensive material according to their personal judgement, these rights are rarely exercised. We depend on the free flow of debate and discussion to keep Stormtrack healthy and reduce administrative load. You must discontinue using Stormtrack and find another venue if you feel that the moderators or administrators are not censoring content to your satisfaction.

I think that lays things out pretty clearly. If anyone thinks ST is not policing content for their tastes, there are no shortage of other boards, and those individuals may want to seek out alternatives instead of bashing the operations here.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I don't think there has been much in the way of attacking Chuck personally Glen (I used a couple descriptive words that were less than flattering and I shouldn't have done that, but otherwies nobody has attacked him personally that I'm aware of). All the posts I've read were attacking what Chuck said and the mentality it represents. Nothing wrong with that IMO and I think Tim and the mods certainly made the right decision in allowing the discussion. Chuck made very controversial public statements and intended for those statements to "provoke" people and that's what he got. I don't think anybody should feel sorry for Chuck now that he's facing adversity. He brought it on himself. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and he can say it in any venue that allows it, but he should expect criticism when he makes controversial statements like that.
I think Chuck saying ST was always allowing personal attacks was a joke. Show me all these personal attacks. You have arguments from time to time in certain threads and inevitably you will get a personal jab every now and then, but there are a thousand users here, it should be expected IMO. If he or anybody else doesn't want to come here because of that, oh well. We've been getting by just fine without him so I won't loose any sleep over it.

 

[David Wolfson]

It's not cool to criticize or discuss someone in an ad hominem manner. True for CFDG and ST alike.

The basic issues of chaser responsibility and safety are very important and well worth a continued discussion. Dr. Doswell is certainly being provocative by taking on the issues as he does -- bravo! They're important issues and by his own reports he personally has less "skin in the game" nowadays than many chasers who are out for weeks or months at a time.

On the other hand, discussing people's individual views on social Darwinism isn't cool or within the scope of either forum. That said (and bending the rule) I can't conceive Dr. Doswell is speaking other than out of utmost love and respect for the chaser community and humanity in general.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I don't doubt Doswell's intentions. I'm sure he has the best of intentions when he talks about the yahoos, but that doesn't make it right. If anybody else started making comments about how they hoped a chaser got killed to make an example to the other yahoos, I doubt it would be embraced to the extent it has been. What Doswell said was wrong IMO and I'm not going to back away from thinking that just because my opinion isn't popular. I certainly respect his right to say what he wants, but freedom of speech makes no guarantees of freedom from criticism.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

By the way - ad hominem is a character attack, rather than an attack on an argument. So far I've seen several posts that attack arguments, but unless I'm missing something - where are the character attacks?

 

[David Wolfson]

THe aspect which is certainly in scope IMO is: if and when a reckless chaser is killed will it have a positive or negative effect on chasing?

Personally I think it will have a negative effect by providing additional pretext for prejudice among the general public and law enforcement.