• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ellicott City Flash Flood 7/30/2016

another1

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
1,081
Location
WV
Basic Beliefs
Christian
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-shmNbxAqs[/YOUTUBE]

The panic builds like a horror movie in this video. From " we wanted to play pokemon go when we got there at 1430 in the afternoon" to "Our hearts are with EC and the families of those 2 souls". I'm familiar with flash floods but I've never seen one rise this quickly.

I think they could have done something to help when the water got close to the window. People were being whipped around by cars floating like corks. They just stood there, filming and saying Oh my God 40 times. None of the profanity morally necessry for the situation actually. Just a lot of oh my God. I lost count at 40.

I was wondering what moral resposibility you think these people had, and if they rose to it. Personally I think they could have done a little more.
 
Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.
 
Speaking as a former resident:
Ellicott city has a history of floods. The township proper is a canyon, it's very small, basically just a single, inclined street, bordered by rowhouses (you can see how narrow it is in the video). The ground floors are mostly storefronts -- the windows don't open. The Patapsco river's at the bottom of town and a tributary mostly parallels Main St.
If Main Street becomes a river there's not much you can do.
 
Last edited:
It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant

Yes for all they knew the water was going to go above even the second floor. The "oh I go ya" followed by a helpless pause got me a little. The part when a screw was the barrier between human life and death. In 1940, men would have their shirts off. They would be barking orders and using proper profanity by the time the first person whipped by the window. I don't know.

There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk.

Boy Scout troops weren't in the area at the time. They could have lent a Swiss armyknife and some encouragement maybe. The window could have been reclosed if the water got too high.

I'd probably break a window with my phone if I were there. I doubt I'd be framing things up artistically as if it wasn't actually happening. I couldn't film past the first human seen in the water. I wouldn't be able to respect myself. Just my own opinion. Is it common in Ellicott to replace curse words with God, Seyorni? I got the impression it was a crowd of "decent people" who don't use cursing. Yes I looked at videos of the town and it does look like a nice waterpark. Dumb place to put a town huh.
 
Speaking as a former resident:
Ellicott city has a history of floods. The township proper is a canyon, it's very small, basically just a single, inclined street, bordered by rowhouses (you can see how narrow it is in the video). The ground floors are mostly storefronts -- the windows don't open. The Patapsco river's at the bottom of town and a tributary mostly parallels Main St.
If Main Street becomes a river there's not much you can do.

That's what I was going to say, as a guy who was down there a couple of days before it flooded (it *was* a great place for Pokemon Go). But once it floods, there's nothing much to do, especially for people with no training or equipment - and this one was remarkably bad, even for Main Street, at about 6 inches of rain in about 2 hours.
 
[YOUTUBE]HuG57kV63zg[/YOUTUBE]

As a followup to what I said before, here's the immediate aftermath on Main street. Some places are relatively good - and others had their first floors, and the sidewalks outside of them, completely destroyed. And knowing the area pretty well, I can't tell you what the difference between the two was, or how to predict which place would suffer which damage.

Something to consider before you go wading out with no shirt on.
 
Shame because it looks like a cute town. The town Huntington WV looks similar. They had a 19 foot flash flood in 1932. Yes 19 feet. Stories I've heard of it are heroic. People were just better back then. Since 1932 they built a huge wall to protect the rich half of town in case it ever happens again. Ellicott doesn't look like a poor place. They may want to save some money for a floodwall.

I have real pictures from 1932. If you want to see a real flood I can scan them sometime. A bunch of all-Americans standing in canoes with ropes and smiles. Saving cats and whatnot. Pretty neat photographs taken by a relative.
 
Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.
It's okay to put people at risk.
 
Shame because it looks like a cute town. The town Huntington WV looks similar. They had a 19 foot flash flood in 1932. Yes 19 feet. Stories I've heard of it are heroic. People were just better back then. Since 1932 they built a huge wall to protect the rich half of town in case it ever happens again. Ellicott doesn't look like a poor place. They may want to save some money for a floodwall.

I have real pictures from 1932. If you want to see a real flood I can scan them sometime. A bunch of all-Americans standing in canoes with ropes and smiles. Saving cats and whatnot. Pretty neat photographs taken by a relative.

Shame on these folks for not bringing their canoes to dinner. They should have been like REAL MEN and hurled themselves through the glass windows so they could swim up a waterfall and grab the drowning babies with their teeth and then simply dolphin kick themselves 50 feet up and out of the water.

you people are ridiculous sometimes....

fast said:
It's okay to put people at risk.

you are always ridiculous.
 
Shame on these folks for not bringing their canoes to dinner. They should have been like REAL MEN and hurled themselves through the glass windows so they could swim up a waterfall and grab the drowning babies with their teeth and then simply dolphin kick themselves 50 feet up and out of the water.

you people are ridiculous sometimes....

fast said:
It's okay to put people at risk.

you are always ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. It's okay to put people at risk. It's not always okay to put people at risk, so it's sometimes okay to put people at risk and therefore okay to put people at risk. You may deny that it's okay to sometimes put people at risk and hold the opinion that it's never okay to put people at risk, and it's that view that is ridiculous.

A cost benefit analysis can often (but not always, of course) show that putting people at risk is worth doing so. If a situation arises where you have the opportunity to save the life of another in imminent danger, and if making the attempt presents a clear and grave risk to others, then you have room to make a sensible argument that the risk to others is not worth putting others in great risk of serious injury or death, but the mere presence of risk, however, is insufficient alone to make the ridiculous claim that never is it okay to put others at risk. Minimal risk, for instance, with the potential for great benefit is seldom shunned as unacceptable. Even moderate risk can be justified in cases of extraordinary benefit.

Is there some moronic principle that can stand up to my stance on this issue? I'm sure.
 
Showed Queenslanders standing in the same kind of 2nd degree rapids while smoking cigarettes and smiling. Like it was no thing. Poor Schafes though. Or however their names are were spelled.

Random public disasters caught on a HQ phone camera are fascinating aren't they bilby. There is this oddity in the background voices and the people acting however they act. I don't necessarily like the disaster itself know what I mean bilby. Weather channel has some nice stuff but they play out stories like everybody is either a hero or a brave survivor. They put no emphasis on cowards and idiots, which is where I think the real entertainment is.

Got any human dilemmas caught in HQ? I don't like war stuff and machine accidents thank you. Weather being beautiful and people being ugly, sort of stuff. Rising panic, choices, stupidity and the moment when things get so bad that the filmer MUST stop recording to remain human. I don't run into a lot of natural disaster recordings like that but I'd like to.
 
Flashflood? No, the current is much too strong. Even First Responders can get swept away and drowned. Had the first floors been flooded and people swept inside, then yes, there was something they could have done - formed a chain from the stairs and tried to grab people as they did in the Indonesian tsunami, but on the street? Sadly, no.
 
About the only thing they could have done with any tiny chance of helping would have been to tie the table cloths together and throw one end out the window in hopes a floater by could grab it. Even that would have likely been futile.

That said, it is likely that the growing reflex to start filming everything will reduce the already low likelihood of people trying to help in situations where it would be useful. Not to mention, people who seek out and watch such videos on a daily basis will have trained themselves to react as an observer rather than participant and helper in a real life crisis. Real life impacts fiction and fiction impacts real life, but the recent pervasive blend of filming and watching real life like it is fiction adds another layer that is intellectually interesting and potentially problematic.
 
Shame on these folks for not bringing their canoes to dinner. They should have been like REAL MEN and hurled themselves through the glass windows so they could swim up a waterfall and grab the drowning babies with their teeth and then simply dolphin kick themselves 50 feet up and out of the water.

you people are ridiculous sometimes....



you are always ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. It's okay to put people at risk. It's not always okay to put people at risk, so it's sometimes okay to put people at risk and therefore okay to put people at risk. You may deny that it's okay to sometimes put people at risk and hold the opinion that it's never okay to put people at risk, and it's that view that is ridiculous.

A cost benefit analysis can often (but not always, of course) show that putting people at risk is worth doing so. If a situation arises where you have the opportunity to save the life of another in imminent danger, and if making the attempt presents a clear and grave risk to others, then you have room to make a sensible argument that the risk to others is not worth putting others in great risk of serious injury or death, but the mere presence of risk, however, is insufficient alone to make the ridiculous claim that never is it okay to put others at risk. Minimal risk, for instance, with the potential for great benefit is seldom shunned as unacceptable. Even moderate risk can be justified in cases of extraordinary benefit.

Is there some moronic principle that can stand up to my stance on this issue? I'm sure.

Obviously a quick risk assessment ("assess the situation" - rule one for any level of first responder) is in order.
The "risk" of getting blood on your clean, disposable, latex gloves is not going to outweigh the risk of a victim bleeding to death... obviously.

When one uses the term, as you did, "putting people at risk", the obvious level of risk is that to their safety... not, say, to the neatness of their hairdo in the even of a blustery wind.

you are backpedaling...
It's not always okay to put people at risk, so it's sometimes okay to put people at risk and therefore okay to put people at risk
what?? you're loosing your balance trying to reverse on a broken unicycle.
you realize it was a stupid thing for you to have written, so you are trying to equivocate "putting people at risk" with "the existence of any kind of risk whatsoever".

Just admit it when you are wrong, or abandon it like everyone else.
 
I think they could have done something to help when the water got close to the window. People were being whipped around by cars floating like corks. They just stood there, filming and saying Oh my God 40 times. None of the profanity morally necessry for the situation actually. Just a lot of oh my God. I lost count at 40.

I was wondering what moral resposibility you think these people had, and if they rose to it. Personally I think they could have done a little more.
Wow, just how clueless must one be to think that there were options available during a flash flood. Water is heavy, fast flowing water will make you its bitch. You can't defy the laws of physics, even for a good cause.

Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.
It's okay to put people at risk.
At risk, sure. To their doom, no.
 
Flashflood? No, the current is much too strong. Even First Responders can get swept away and drowned. Had the first floors been flooded and people swept inside, then yes, there was something they could have done - formed a chain from the stairs and tried to grab people as they did in the Indonesian tsunami, but on the street? Sadly, no.

Well, that did happen.

[YOUTUBE]zCN4u_kwHw8[/YOUTUBE]

But I have to note that dude did almost get swept off in the flood.
 
Why are you concerned with people saying Oh my god??

This is your brain on religion, folks. Yeah, it's terrible that people might be drowning and property is floating away, but let's be offended by Oh my God.

I probably would have been saying Jesus Tittyfucking Christ myself. Focus on that while sane people concern themselves with reality.
 
Had the first floors been flooded and people swept inside, then yes, there was something they could have done - formed a chain from the stairs and tried to grab people as they did in the Indonesian tsunami, but on the street? Sadly, no.

I'd be on the first floor of the establishment. I'd be looking for ways to halp. The "men" could have linked their belts. They could have taken off their shirts and started cursing. Anything but watching, filming and saying omG.

people who seek out and watch such videos on a daily basis will have trained themselves to react as an observer rather than participant and helper in a real life crisis. Real life impacts fiction and fiction impacts real life, but the recent pervasive blend of filming and watching real life like it is fiction adds another layer that is intellectually interesting and potentially problematic.

I don't think watching a lot of natural disaster videos inhibits my ability to react to them. But I'm just me, so I can't speak for less manly men I see in videos. I saw no men in the Ellicott video, so I couldn't relate to that situation at all. Maybe I'm just indifferent because I'm so masculine.

You're right that victims of technology disasters like social media can often think of themselves as too sensitive, and that can make them react poorly to emergencies. They get camcorder-head syndrome and it screws up their perception. I ritualistically watch the disaster of social media unfold too, but my manhood is still intact. I'm just me though. Some men can't hang.

Wow, just how clueless must one be to think that there were options available during a flash flood. Water is heavy, fast flowing water will make you its bitch. You can't defy the laws of physics, even for a good cause.

Jimmy I doubt they could have helped to any great extent, but appearing like you're a man can calm the women and boys down. I saw no one taking charge. There is a lot of importance in how you appear to be handling a situation. Men don't say omG and film. Men flip over tables and use enginuity to create floatation devices. Men carry pocket knives for those darn screws that try to get in the way. Men don't live in Ellicott.

Why are you concerned with people saying Oh my God??

Profanity is more important than omG in a flash flood. omG is profaniy, but not the right type. When people hear REAL profanity, they pay attention. They straighten up and take things seriously. My problem with omG (in this case) has nothing to do with God.

This is your brain on religion

Many of the supposed Godless people in your community here represent "this is your brain on religion". I'm not complaining, but know that Jesus finds a way to tittyfuck anyone willing to say his name a thousand times in any context whatsoever. Kinda like Beetle Juice. God is tricky like that.

If you're into the comical hypocrisy behind all that mess, maybe talk to me about it somewhere else. I'd rather not give my energies to things that aren't necessary, and make myself a villain for being Religious. The rational choice to add Religion to my life has created the same chemical reactions inside my brain that cursing his name the rest of my life would cause. If there is no difference, then I choose rationality. That is all the God talk I feel like doing today thank you.

I just wanted to talk about floods and weaklings. Guess that does sound totally Biblical but you know what I mean.
 
Wow, just how clueless must one be to think that there were options available during a flash flood. Water is heavy, fast flowing water will make you its bitch. You can't defy the laws of physics, even for a good cause.

Once they saw people in the water people can be heard (and briefly seen) desperately trying to open windows to allow people in to safety. It was good that they were not able to, and that no one thought to smash one any windows, as that could have risked the lives of those within the restaurant. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to help anyone that was outside without putting more people (including themselves) at risk. The person (presumably an employee of the restaurant) who announced to the patrons to stay put did exactly the right thing. I didn't hear anyone on the phone with emergency personnel attempting to provide guidance for rescue workers to track people in need of help that were swept up, but that doesn't mean it wasn't being done elsewhere in the establishment.
It's okay to put people at risk.
At risk, sure. To their doom, no.
Exactly! And that's exactly why I wrote what I wrote. The argument that we shouldn't act because doing so puts others at risk ... with the unspoken premise that we have no right to put others at risk (no matter how low that risk might be) is bullshit.
 
Back
Top Bottom