Open letter from Chuck Doswell

[cedwards]

Doswell says he would NEVER be a member of ST, yet he uses ST to state that, and to convey his opinion. This in MY opinion and would be like saying, "I would NEVER join the Republican Party, but would go to the Republican Party Convention, tell them that I would never be a Republican, and then tell them reasons WHY.

That is not a fair analogy.
Doswell was responding to flames about HIM. I have been to other forums that had nothing to do with chasing or any of my interests do set the record straight. They posted bad information about storm chase tours based on their pre-conceived ideas, not about facts. I went on the forum to state the facts and never joined.
If you were not a Republican and the republican party was flaming you, you DO have a right to respond to them without joining the republican party.


Why should he be obligated to join this forum, especially with the recent flames about him, most of which are not based on first hand knowledge.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I want to make something absolutely clear:

My comments in the aforementioned thread were not directed directly at the person of Dr. Doswell. I do, as most here do, without question admire his achievements and what he has done for the furtherance of science and the continued research of severe weather, and that is worthy of its own unique respect. The individual or their is not my concern. My comments were directed to the opinions, repeat, OPINIONS, of *ANY* individual who takes on a position of wishing harm to any person, and it is that *position* that I detest, not the individual him or herself. There is a difference in respecting a person and detesting an individual, unique comment.

Dr. Doswell publicly spoke his opinion to a large audience, my response was a public response as well to a large audience. It is appropriate for him to respond through a third party to a forum which is discussing the individual to relay his opinion, just as it is appropriate for us to respond on this forum.

I am not by any means a detester of the individual, I am a detester of a specific, unique comment. An ad-hominem attack is against the PERSON, not against an OPINION or STATEMENT, and there is a difference. No individual on this forum that I have read has directly attacked the person, just the comment or statement, so in my opinion, Dr. Doswell's statement that this forum allows ad-hominem attacks is incorrect.

 

[Craig Maire II]

Hmmmm.

Rdale wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Maire II
I feel no guilt for enjoying the storms I see but also hate to hear about people getting hurt etc.

Did you mean to post in this thread? I'm not sure I get the connection... Dr Doswell has an issue with yahoo chasers that drive into the heart of the tornado to get the latest footage. If you're saying that's what you do, then I think you're on the wrong forum.

I guess I did get a little confused on that one and no I don't drive into tornados to get wild footage, I value my Cavalier to much to do that!LOL LOL...

 

[Kem Poyner]

Look at the bright side..tornado videos are getting so common that nobody even wants to watch them. Now, if I catch a nice shot of a truck full of yahoos being sucked up into a twister, that would get me on a cable channel storm show. Maybe I will change my focus on that. Oh, is that offensive....who cares, get over it.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Chuck, I was going to stay out of this, but after mulling this over for a month or so a few thoughts come forward:

1) You should keep in mind that Stormtrack has a very large membership and while a few members may be discussing something or may have an opinion that in no way should imply to you that the rest of us concur. Any thread could absolutely NOT represent the majority opinion of ST members.

2) While you say that Stormtrack has a long history of allowing ad hominem attacks (meaning attacks against individuals) I respectfully disagree. If you do some research you will note that ST has some fairly strict rules regarding conduct and such arguments are explicitly condemned. Indeed, the rules state to 'attack the argument, and not the person'. Fairly active administration and moderation attempts to enforce these rules. From my experiences they catch even small things, even sometimes what I would consider silly or really innocuous things; however I'm sure there are the occasions when things slip by. With that said, however they seem to also be very strong at slapping warnings, punishments, and suspensions on members even after the fact once a matter comes to their attention.

3) While you currently refuse and look down upon the idea of membership in Stormtrack I would ask you to reconsider. I think you have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer the current growing, and up and coming next generation of spotters, chasers, NWS employees, meteorologists, and severe weather scientists which are represented on Stormtrack but not on CFDG or other such proprietary venues. Certainly an open venue for such discourse would encourage open debate and foster learning. It would also help to silence your detractors because they and other members would know of you first hand, and likely because of it respect you more.

 

[Darren Addy]

I get dibs on calling my 2008 Fantasy Football team: Darwin's Yahoos.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

This was the biggest consideration I had to make before deciding to chase: no matter how good you are, no matter what method you follow and how sound it is, no matter how many chases you've had in the past, you are putting yourself at added risk to do this, every single time. Whether it be from the tornado itself, getting whacked by a surprise satellite or second tornado, getting pegged in the wrong place by hail or debris while getting a shot, or, most likely, running off the road and killing yourself because it's wet and windy or for some totally nonrelated reason (maybe some drunk driver is driving as fast as he can the other way to escape the storm), your chances of living most likely decrease than if you were sitting at home watching from afar, unless you happen to chase down an EF-5 from a safe distance behind that ends up wrecking your own house.

Therefore, if one defines "yahoo" as "one who deliberately increases his risk of being injured or killed because of chasing a storm," we are all yahoos. We all increase our chances of washing our genes out from the evolutionary pool, provided we haven't reached an age already where we can no longer be able to produce offspring.

If one defines "yahoo" as someone who engages in business that ups their risk even more, then that is their choice to make, so long as they don't overtly break any laws that affect others, harm others directly with their chasing methods, or, worst of all, fail to call in dangerous storms or call in damage/injuries along the path of the storms, especially if they are first on the scene. Wishing death on this type of a "yahoo" that isn't overtly committing felonies is the same as a Marine wishing death on another Marine who likes to be the first one to kick down the door and fight so long as the order to do so was given and he doesn't otherwise behave in ways that endanger other Marines.

Perhaps those who advocate this position should say, in my opinion: "I believe in Darwin, and though his theory affects all of us chasers to some extent, there are those who are flirting with extinction in an even more dangerous manner. Therefore we need to educate these people whenever we can and by any means possible, but if they don't listen, the only thing we can do is wish for the best for them."

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

By the way, I hope my post isn't seen as a personal attack nor as an uninformed post; I'm just replying to the quote given earlier in the thread. I have absolutely nothing against Dr. Doswell; to be perfectly honest, beyond a few pretty photos I've seen I have no idea who this gentleman is and had no idea he had made any statements. I also do not know what is the CFDG.

 

[joel ewing]

Could somebody please inform me about this CFDG? This is the first I've heard of it. Thanks in advance to whoever can enlighten me.
Regarding Dr. Doswell's letter and the associated "flap" or whatever is going on.....that's precisely why in recent years I've preferred to chase "under the radar". I don't post in S.T. like I used to do years back, and I tend to shun in-field chaser convergences when at all possible. It just seems that within this chasing "endeavor", there is always somebody torqued off for one reason or another. And when one fire goes away...another one starts. I finally figuered out, in my mind at least....why this is. It's because too many chasers have their entire identity and ego wrapped up in the fact that they are "tornado chasers".

 

[Paul Austin]

Could somebody please inform me about this CFDG? This is the first I've heard of it. Thanks in advance to whoever can enlighten me.

See post HERE.

No problem.

 

[Shane Adams]

that's precisely why in recent years I've preferred to chase "under the radar". I don't post in S.T. like I used to do years back, and I tend to shun in-field chaser convergences when at all possible. It just seems that within this chasing "endeavor", there is always somebody torqued off for one reason or another. And when one fire goes away...another one starts.

And the quote above is a wonderful example of this, as the Doswell thread had long-since been extinguished prior.

I finally figuered out, in my mind at least....why this is. It's because too many chasers have their entire identity and ego wrapped up in the fact that they are "tornado chasers".

Well, I guess that makes me an a@#hole by default, eh? I'd be happy to introduce myself to you sometime out there and show you that I'm not, but since that's apparently not an option...