Open letter from Chuck Doswell
Posted on Jan 08, 2009 under xn--zqqs84h3is.com | editTo my supporters and detractors on ST:
Recently, there's been some pretty negative things said on the ST forum about me. Yes, the word gets back to me, eventually. Generally speaking, I pay these no heed. Opinions about me vary, and I can understand and accept that. I speak my mind, but I respect the opinions of others even when I disagree with them.
Some well-meaning supporters of mine have said, in effect, that what I've done in the past gives me the right to say what I think. Other posters on the ST forum have maintained that what I've done as a scientist and/or chaser doesn't give me the right to say what I think. Actually, I agree with the latter point of view. My right to say what I think is NOT based on my accomplishments - rather, it's based on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
>> redress of grievances.
That is to say, my right to say what I think is guaranteed by the US Constitution, not through my accomplishments. If you have a problem with what I have to say, or what you might believe I've said, you have the right to email me and make your point. My email address is not a secret. Virtually none of my detractors on the ST Forum have ever bothered to confront me directly about issues where they believe we disagree. You're certainly free to express your opinions on the ST Forum (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for me to have much respect for an unwillingness to face me directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to my face, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ...
About my upcoming talk at the National Severe Weather Workshop: I've been criticized already on the ST Forum on the basis of the TITLE of my talk, which was deliberately chosen to be provocative. No one as yet has any idea what I'm going to present, so all of this exchange is not based on what I'm presenting, but on what some of my detractors have speculated that I MIGHT be saying. This is an exceedingly weak basis on which to form an opinion about my presentation. I certainly have no capability to silence my detractors, nor do I wish to silence them, but one would hope that ad hominem attacks at least would have a more substantive basis. Perhaps some among my detractors know something about their own personal level of responsibility during storm chases and have chosen to launch a preemptive attack?
I am not now, nor will I ever be, a subscriber to the ST forum, precisely because this forum (like many others) has a long history of tolerating ad hominem attacks on people, some of whom aren't even forum members. This will be my final word on this (or any other) subject via this Forum. Thanks to Tim Vasquez for posting this. Have a great day
... Chuck Doswell
Well in all fairness they don't post anywhere very much... David Hoadley to my knowledge is enjoying retirement and has never been the kind of person to spend a lot of time on the computer. Tim Marshall has been buried under a landslide of Ivan/Charlie/Katrina/etc survey work and has a busy travel schedule, though he does make time to post occasionally.
Tim
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.
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, 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.
What I am seeing is people disagreeing with some of the methods used to establish and make that argument.
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?
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."
Chuck said it himself: "deliberately chosen to be provocative."
Provoking thought, which leads to assumption, which leads to opinion. A perfectly natural process, something advertising execs are masters at exploiting. Chuck did a fine of job this himself, though I don't understand why he seems to be looking down on those opinions, being they were formed in part by his own manipulating. Our basis is weak because we were given just enough to form a basis, but not enough to confirm anything...again, as Chuck himself confirmed, by design.
I certainly have no capability to silence my detractors, nor do I wish to silence them, but one would hope that ad hominem attacks at least would have a more substantive basis. Perhaps some among my detractors know something about their own personal level of responsibility during storm chases and have chosen to launch a preemptive attack?
I'd like to point out that, at the time of my posting regarding this matter, I didn't know who the speaker would be. It didn't matter to me. My opinion wasn't an attack, but merely an observation, regarding the topic of the lecture, not the lecturer.
Yes...
My biggest fear now is that yahoo chasing will take on a previously unheard of dimension and become "Yahoo Chasing." In other words, folks will begin to follow and document yahoos to the point of the subject having its own forum on ST, complete with a Y-rating system:
Y1 -- Tripod on road, inconvenient parking, gratuitous screaming and yelling to enhance video footage;
Y2 -- Distracted driving at low speeds, jamming behind vehicles like DOW or TIV; causing gratituous scenes at gas or food stops, ignoring traffic while standing in roadway;
Y3 -- Driving off-road without concern for public/private property, driving while entering data, legitimately offending local law enforcement;
Y4 -- Offensive driving, blocking another chaser's access to storm, driving at speeds above both legal limit and common sense factor, getting close enough to the vortex to endanger unwilling passengers;
Y5 -- Causing or having an incident that kills or maims or destroys property, either vehicular or storm-enabled.
This and other comments concerning "who has the right to post on Stormtrack" are as ignorant as the bonehead saying used by some in response to constructive criticism (or just plain ol' criticism) about the current policies of the current gov't in power (in 1964 or 2006): "Amerika, love it or leave it."
Maybe "Strormtrack, love it or shove it," would be more appropriate for those that get their identity from pseudo fraternal-ism. As noted by another, this is a public forum for sharing ideas, not a "right of passage" self-anointed elitist fraternity.
Lord of the Flies revisited.
http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/mlb/1999/1030/photo/a_max.jpg
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.
"I am a firm believer in Darwin. (Loud applause.) Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true."
I don't really care that much about what he says, I just find it annoying that other people would applaud and tolerate that kind of mentality. It is indefenseible IMO. At best those kinds of comments are in extremely poor taste.
Personally I think it will have a negative effect by providing additional pretext for prejudice among the general public and law enforcement.
Recently, there's been some pretty negative things said on various blogs and in lectures about various Stormtrack members and other chasers. Yes, the word gets back to us, eventually. Generally speaking, we pay these no heed. Opinions about us vary, and we can understand and accept that. We speak our mind, but we respect the opinions of others even when we disagree with them.
Some well-meaning supporters have said, in effect, that what we've done in the past gives us the right to say what we think. Other posters on the ST forum have maintained that what we've done as scientists and/or chasers doesn't give us the right to say what we think. Actually, we agree with the latter point of view. Our right to say what we think is NOT based on accomplishments - rather, it's based on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
>> redress of grievances.
That is to say, our right to say what we think is guaranteed by the US Constitution, not through our accomplishments. If you have a problem with what we have to say, or what you might believe we've said, you have the right to email us and make your point. Our email addresses are not a secret. Virtually none of our detractors have ever bothered to confront us directly about issues where they believe we disagree. You're certainly free to express your opinions in your blogs or personal email lists (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for us to have much respect for an unwillingness to face us directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to our faces, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ...
We will continue as subscribers to the ST forum, precisely because this forum (like many others) has a long history of healthy debate and encouraging the best in others. This will not be the final word on this (or any other) subject via this Forum. Have a great day.
I agree with that opinion. If you want nothing to do with something, then have nothing to do with something.
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".
Love this point of view ... if we could find a way to get this vibe going instead of negativity, I'd be on board 100%.
And there's another ding against ST. By this time next year, with CFDG actively recruiting and Doswell saying we all suck, this forum will be dissolved. Tim, why would you allow this to make it to the masses?
I agree with Gribble on the fact that only a few Doswell “detractors” were present on the ST forum through all this (maybe 5?). The ST member’s E-mail’s are equally easy to find and sending this letter to them personally rather than via Tim to the 1000+ members here who had nothing to do with this is simply bad protocol.
The whole reemergence of the Doswell/CFDG issue via the “open letters” of late is something I can’t understand. The issue has been dead and laid to rest for a while now. I ask to this group: why bring more attention to all of this?
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.
Chuck said...
"You're certainly free to express your opinions on the ST Forum (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for me to have much respect for an unwillingness to face me directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to my face, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ..."
Back the train up... I don't understand how you can criticize people for posting on ST instead of criticizing the person they have a problem with directly (via email). Isn't that exactly what Mr. Doswell and others did when they criticized the "yahoos"? 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. Now Chuck is turning around criticizing his "detractors" for criticizing him on stormtrack instead of doing it in an email. Stormtrack is an arena open to public view, just like the places Chuck and others made their comments. So what's the difference between how/where Chuck made his statements vs. how/where his "detractors" made theirs? There is no difference. That screams of hypocrisy IMO. Nobody thinks they are hiding by posting statements on stormtrack. Like these statements aren't going to get back to Doswell. I can copy and paste this to an email if that is how Mr. Doswell would prefer it, but as I stated in the other thread on this issue, my last email to Doswell went unanswered.
This is being framed by Chuck as cowardly attacks based on assumptions and speculation. I can only speak for myself, but my criticisms were based on quotes. There was no speculation of any kind. Mr. Doswell has made many statements about how the "yahoo" chasers should/would be weeded out by getting killed in some sort of short term evolution of storm chasers. Those comments are absurd IMO and if you want to make controversial statements like that, great, I don't care. But you ought to be ready to take criticism for it, and that's what you got.
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.
I don't really care that much about what he says, I just find it annoying that other people would applaud and tolerate that kind of mentality. It is indefenseible IMO. At best those kinds of comments are in extremely poor taste.
As I understand it, the offending quote was made after a series funny of slides showing chasers doing stupid or dangerous things. Personally I don't have a problem with the first half of the statement "I am a firm believer in Darwin." and the applause that followed it. I am sure I would have thought it was funny too. In my opinion the second part "Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true." is over the top and in bad taste. That being said, it is essentially "If, then" statement that isn't the exactly the same as saying you want someone dead.
As for the "yahoo" blanket-tag thing, I have my own long-standing opinion of it: We ALL take turns being the yahoo out there. Every person who's chased has done something stupid, be it by pure absent-mindedness or quite on-purpose to get a shot, or get there faster, or get out of the car, or whatever. I've been to a crapload of chaser gatherings over the past decade and I can write a list of highly-respected names who I've personally heard recall past accounts of dumbassness, followed by a great laugh from all of us who were standing around. Little things.
But feel free to argue on if you wish :D
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...
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.
See post HERE (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14472&highlight=cfdg).
No problem.
Chuck (and Tim,) I really don't know who from what around here. I'm just a guy interested in storm chasing who got an email advertising a conference with a provocatively-entitled presentation. I'm not a detractor, but a fairly ignorant bystander speculating about the statement seemingly made about storm chasing in the title, which caused me to wonder if chasing is threatened by the reckless among us.
I'm truly sorry to have thrown myself into the middle of this and I apologize to one and all for anything I've said deemed offensive in any way.
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.
To state this principle simply, if I am defamed or misrepresented, or believe I have been so, through publicly accessible forums in ST (and let’s face it you don’t have to belong to ST to see some of the ad hominem attacks that time to time, unfortunately, punctuate some of the threads here), then I have the right to reply in that forum.
If we don’t believe that Dr Doswell has that right then we should not open any of the forums to the public and by dint of that contradiction should remove the word forum from this site.
Webster’s definition of forum - a public meeting place for open discussion.
You need not have to belong to state an opinion in a forum.
Come on guys (and gals), this is ST, a good source of intelligent opinion and thought, let’s keep our thinking crisp. We are democratic after all, aren’t we?
If we don’t agree with his opinion (whatever that may be) then we have the right of reply as well.
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...
Mr. Doswell has made many statements about how the "yahoo" chasers should/would be weeded out by getting killed in some sort of short term evolution of storm chasers.
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).
And this letter from him is about what? My thoughts exactly.
Shane Adams
Chuck said it himself: "deliberately chosen to be provocative."
Maybe he should have chosen a topic that wasnt so "thought provoking"
In short, It sounds like a case of "he made his bed, and now he has to sleep in it, but doesnt want to"
*This post is not being directed at anyone, it is simply my own opinions*
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Maire II http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?p=159513#post159513)
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:D LOL...
Are you really that afraid that another chaser speeding might tarnish your reputation?
This past season already shows evidence that we have "renegade" law enforcement out there that love to make ANY chaser's life quite crappy. I doubt their negative opinion of chasers formed overnight... it was probably spurred by poor conduct to some extent. So yes, I think we should be concerned about how other chasers behave.
While I'm not concerned with people speeding 10+ on dry highways en route to the storm, you can't disagree with the notion that there has been an increasing number of moronic incidents out there. While I don't necessarily believe we have a higher percentage of "yahoos" than in past years, we do have a substantially larger number of chasers. If the percentage of yahoos remains constant, then their numbers have also increased.
So then the question is ... which is the best method of achieving this goal?
A. Alienating the people with the negative behaviors through actions, speech, etc.
or
B. Learning what actually motivates people and bringing out the best in others.
While I'm not concerned with people speeding 10+ on dry highways en route to the storm, you can't disagree with the notion that there has been an increasing number of moronic incidents out there. While I don't necessarily believe we have a higher percentage of "yahoos" than in past years, we do have a substantially larger number of chasers. If the percentage of yahoos remains constant, then their numbers have also increased.
I can definitely say that chasers don't want to go through what I went through with that cop this past spring. I always said that I don't care what other chasers do, I'm just concerned with what I do.
I can absolutely retract from that statement now. It's definitely safe to say that other chasers that don't behave on the road make it hard for the rest of us. I will report irresponsible behavior if I see it. I expect the same to be done to me.
Therein lies the rub. To some, those type of comments project an "elitist" mentality. At the same time, some chasers project an "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality by not considering how their chasing affects others. Ironically, addressing the latter (without consideration or care for the chasers involved) defeats the motivation (i.e., consideration) that prompted the address in the first place.
The key here is caring. That is, we need to care about each other and the victims of the storms that we chase. Individualism and the accompanying "you do it your way, I'll do it mine" modus operandi work only to a point. We've all made mistakes, and we will all make some in the future. When we make big mistakes, we hope that someone will be kind enough to give us a break.
For instance: How many of you have ever risked going down a dirt road only to get stuck in the mud? It was your dumb choice, but thank goodness, some kind local had mercy on you and pulled you out. Did you deserve to be pulled out the mud? Absolutely not! Applying Darwinian concepts here, they should have just left you where you were. But they didn't. This is how we should treat each other.
Gabe
From Tim Vasquez: I am passing along the following email I received from Chuck.
I have to agree with Shane too, though.
From Shane Adams: I agree with that opinion. If you want nothing to do with something, then have nothing to do with something.
Amen.
I saw nothing in Dr. Doswell's reply which personally offended me.
As a disclaimer, I don't belong to CDFG nor any other closed discussion group. And, with all due respect to Dr. Doswell and anyone else, everyone's opinions and assumptions are just that, opinions and assumptions. If they are uninformed and poorly constructed they amount to a hill of beans to me. When next spring rolls around and everyone is out pursuing supercells and tornadoes, are you gonna spend your time stewing over your resentment of someone else's opinions and comments?
Storm chasing is a widely diverse activity shared by many people across a broad spectrum. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, even Dr. Doswell. You may not like them (and I haven't always agreed with him either), but at the end of the day does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?
It's simple folks: just chase in a responsible and respectful matter and don't worry about what others think or say. I know this is gonna get some folks dander up, but if what Dr. Doswell said really offends you then maybe you should spend some time investigating why what he said bothers you so much instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to it. If, when you do this, you feel certain his opinion is not aimed at you then, as H said, "let it go in one ear and out the other." If it still bothers you, then obviously he has touched a raw nerve and said something that might hit close to home.
For what it's worth. about 12 years ago I made some negative and ad hominem comments about Dr. Doswell in regards to a very similar subject in a USENET group which got back to him. He e-mailed me with a trite but balanced reply which made me realize, after some reflection, I did indeed go too far. And yes, I did apologize via e-mail and he replied back. I ended up corresponding with him a few more times over the next several years and found him to actually be cordial and accommodating to my questions and comments. After actually corresponding with him on a personal level, I developed a respect for him based on my correspondence and not over his public comments which, yes, can be provocative.
In science, provocation is what drives advancements. If it didn't, we'd still believe that tornadoes have 500 mph winds, follow rivers, are created and driven by electrical forces and that a shaman or witch doctor waving a stick can drive them away (which would not be good for storm chasing :) ) Provocative means, simply, to provoke thought. And, yes, criticism is necessary and encouraged. But it must be well thought and constructive criticism.
Some may take this personal, but I think some people have a problem with Dr. Doswell and others in the academic/research community because you set them on a pedestal and then contrive in your own mind that they have a messianic complex or something of the sort. News break! They are not gods and I believe even they would agree with that. They have their opinions and everyone else certainly has a right to respond to them, but in a civil and well thought out way. There's no reason to crucify them simply because you vehemently disagree with what they say. That's probably the reason that so many in the academic, research and operational fields of meteorology shun public forums. Even if you're thick skinned you can only take so much criticism before you just say to yourself, "It's not worth the effort." I honestly think that those of you who engage in this behavior have an inferiority complex which you cannot resolve. If anyone takes that personal, then again, maybe some introspection is in order.
How many of you remember WX-CHASE about 10, 11, 12 years ago? At that time it was the best, and almost only source of online communication for storm chasers besides e-mail. Doswell, Harold Brooks, Howie Goldstein, Bruce Haynie, Gilbert Sebenste, Gene Moore, Lon Curtis, Dan Satterfield, John McLaughlin and even David Hoadley were regular contributors to that group. And it was open to inclusion from anyone interested in storm chasing, even a stupid no-name chaser like me; all you had to do was subscribe. So why aren't they contributing to this forum? Think about it folks; even David Hoadley and Tim Marshall, the men who created and nurtured, respectively, the publication which gave this forum it's name, hardly, if ever, post anything here. There has to be a reason for that.
I believe this is just another case of SDS induced boredom, much in line with the perpetual light bar and elitism threads which inevitably pop up this time each year.
I've said all I'm going to say on this subject. Feel free to flame away or reply with ad hominem attacks. As I said in the first paragraph, uninformed opinions are irrelevant to me.
Regards,
Mike
P.S. I do want to add that this is not in response to the replies already made in this thread which so far have been civil and point out some valid rebuttals against Dr. Doswell's message.
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.
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.
Now where Dr. Doswell, Dr. Gray, and other atmospheric scientists may open themselves to discussion here IMHO is when they present debatable scientific opinions in a public context.
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.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
