|
It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two 
|
My IQ dropped 10 points just from reading those posts.
|
I don't know why, but seeing the fuselage still intact makes me feel safer when riding a plane. I know that even if shit goes horribly wrong I still have a good chance of surviving if the pilot can do a "close to proper" landing.
|
On July 07 2013 10:59 farvacola wrote:It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two
There is 1% of people like this who are so stupid. Like, their IQ is around 40.
|
Doesn't come near saying the plane looks "shoddy" as if Asian(a) is a synonym for poor maintenance.
|
I mean, I live in Korea and Koreans REALLY can't drive...
User was warned for this post
|
On July 07 2013 11:21 OptimusYale wrote:
I mean, I live in Korea and Koreans REALLY can't drive...
There's a time and place for this... and it's not here and now.
|
On July 07 2013 06:49 mostevil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 06:35 opisska wrote:
This is why you should pay attention to the information about emergnecy exits in the plane (they are basically useful only in such a situation - botched, but fairly reasonable landing which invariably leads to fire, but the fuselage is moreorless intact). The reports on injuries seem still conflicting, but overall it seems like the evacuation worked well and that is important to note regarding safety.
To the people talking about them having to fly soon, don't you feel it is a little absurd? The time conicidence is absolutely irrelevant. If something, you should feer better seeing that emergenncy procedures are being followed. Flying is still amazingly safe. Of course, this is going to be interesting to hear the analysis of causes, but that is gonna takes weeks.
Botched may be premature assessment. Sounds like he'd radio and emergency before he came in, could be he didn't have power to reach the runway and clipped the seawall. It may well be that he did a good job in the circumstances, wait for the facts to in.
I was not trying to asses anything. Sorry, English is not my first language. What I meant is that all the security procedures on board are applicable in a relatively limited set of situations - that is, when the plane sort of lands well, but not quite - whereas a lot of hull loss accidents are hoppeless split-second fell-of-the-sky kind situations, where no amount of emergency readiness saves ayone. But this situation shows that accidents when evacuating the plane quickly and effectively does save lives and that is an important lesson to take, even though we all who fly many times a year can at times get annoyed be the endless repeat of securiy instructions.
|
On July 07 2013 10:51 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I would be irritated too if somebody called me out about using something while he himself used that same thing.
If he tries to defend his first comment saying it was sarcasm, then its in poor taste and he's setting an equally poor example. If he defends it as a poor assumption and admits he messed up, then its just stupid because why would you say that in the first place? Neo admitted his first post was not sarcasm so it was simply a stupid, baseless claim. His second was sarcastic and was just him dodging Craton's question. His reaction to getting called out after that was flat out terrible. He messed up, replied sarcastically and didn't admit it in the first post afterwards, then got irritated...for being rightfully called out? Whatever Neo says about Craton's other posts is irrelevant, this is about this thread only, and he's the one that screwed up here.
My question for you is why should someone who makes a baseless claim not be called out here? Would anyone say anything against someone getting called out in a similar fashion on the SC2 or Dota 2 forums? Hell no, they'd be all for it, so why are you defending the guy who made a baseless claim and also reacted poorly to getting called out on it here? Is it because he's got a red name?
Edit: He said Craton jumped on his "offhand remark" when its clear now that remark was Neo attempting to dodge the question with sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
|
People look relaxed while getting out, and taking a couple of pictures.
|
The amount of likes is what annoys me the most.
|
On July 07 2013 11:43 rezoacken wrote:
People look relaxed while getting out, and taking a couple of pictures.
It's a once in a lifetime experience (albeit a one you wouldn't want to experience)
But since they lived to tell the tale, gotta take pictures.
|
I live about 5minutes from SFO. Seriously so crazy
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 07 2013 10:59 farvacola wrote:It really makes one wonder: have people always been this hateful, or do platforms like twitter magnify the terribleness of people? Sadly, I think it's a mix of the two
I literally had to face palm.... The stupid was just too overwhelming.
|
Dang they thought it was a North Korean plane... that's worse than the not so serious racism.
|
On July 07 2013 10:46 ilikeredheads wrote:
damn....at least 2 dead and one still missing....RIP
Looking at the pictures.....The tail section is missing. The top of the fuselage has been blown off.
When the plane came to a stand-still, most of the fuselage was intact (nothing blown off) as can be seen on the picture that's been posted here in the thread a coupla times already where you see passengers leave the plane. The top of the fuselage was destroyed by fire later. Judging by said picture, the right-hand engine was severely damaged and caught fire when the plane came in too low and struck the seawall at the start of the runway (which also led to the gear and tail section getting ripped off).
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/07/us/07plane3/07plane3-articleLarge.jpg)
This is usually a good place for more information as it comes in:
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
Interesting link:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/06/us/where-asiana-flight-214-came-to-rest.html
|
On July 07 2013 11:31 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 10:51 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I would be irritated too if somebody called me out about using something while he himself used that same thing. If he tries to defend his first comment saying it was sarcasm, then its in poor taste and he's setting an equally poor example. If he defends it as a poor assumption and admits he messed up, then its just stupid because why would you say that in the first place? Neo admitted his first post was not sarcasm so it was simply a stupid, baseless claim. His second was sarcastic and was just him dodging Craton's question. His reaction to getting called out after that was flat out terrible. He messed up, replied sarcastically and didn't admit it in the first post afterwards, then got irritated...for being rightfully called out? Whatever Neo says about Craton's other posts is irrelevant, this is about this thread only, and he's the one that screwed up here. My question for you is why should someone who makes a baseless claim not be called out here? Would anyone say anything against someone getting called out in a similar fashion on the SC2 or Dota 2 forums? Hell no, they'd be all for it, so why are you defending the guy who made a baseless claim and also reacted poorly to getting called out on it here? Is it because he's got a red name? Edit: He said Craton jumped on his "offhand remark" when its clear now that remark was Neo attempting to dodge the question with sarcasm.
Not really going to debate it, but Craton's question was hopefully also a sarcastic and rhetorical question.
Series of events:
Neo makes a statement which is wrong (plane is shaky)
Craton makes a comment that is sarcastic/rhetorical/exaggerated ("...to look factory fresh")
Neo responds with equally sarcastic response
Craton responds by saying Neo is responding like an asshole, even though Craton's first response was just as much of an asshole comment
Neo responds with the comment that we are discussing now.
Neo's first post was simply an at a glance comment based on some pictures. It was of little substance and Craton tried to make more of it than what was there. Neo never said his first comment was sarcastic. I also dont see any major reason to call out Neo at all. Question what he meant, sure... but he kind of explained that already in the post where you are calling him out on his rant.
Not going to talk about it anymore though because it is a dumb argument and wildly off topic.
EDIT: This is quite obviously my point of view on the matter, and hopefully sheds light on a possibility of why Neo responded with sarcasm to sarcasm. This is only a point of view, if you see it differently then fine.
|
I've thought before about landings like this where the tail hits something first before the landing gear. This is part of the reason I always try to get a seat closer to the front than the back of the plane. a little scary~
Condolences to the families of those who didn't make it.
offtopic+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2013 13:19 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 11:31 Ig wrote:On July 07 2013 10:51 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I would be irritated too if somebody called me out about using something while he himself used that same thing. If he tries to defend his first comment saying it was sarcasm, then its in poor taste and he's setting an equally poor example. If he defends it as a poor assumption and admits he messed up, then its just stupid because why would you say that in the first place? Neo admitted his first post was not sarcasm so it was simply a stupid, baseless claim. His second was sarcastic and was just him dodging Craton's question. His reaction to getting called out after that was flat out terrible. He messed up, replied sarcastically and didn't admit it in the first post afterwards, then got irritated...for being rightfully called out? Whatever Neo says about Craton's other posts is irrelevant, this is about this thread only, and he's the one that screwed up here. My question for you is why should someone who makes a baseless claim not be called out here? Would anyone say anything against someone getting called out in a similar fashion on the SC2 or Dota 2 forums? Hell no, they'd be all for it, so why are you defending the guy who made a baseless claim and also reacted poorly to getting called out on it here? Is it because he's got a red name? Edit: He said Craton jumped on his "offhand remark" when its clear now that remark was Neo attempting to dodge the question with sarcasm. Not really going to debate it, but Craton's question was hopefully also a sarcastic and rhetorical question. Series of events: Neo makes a statement which is wrong (plane is shaky) Craton makes a comment that is sarcastic/rhetorical/exaggerated ("...to look factory fresh") Neo responds with equally sarcastic response Craton responds by saying Neo is responding like an asshole, even though Craton's first response was just as much of an asshole comment Neo responds with the comment that we are discussing now. Neo's first post was simply an at a glance comment based on some pictures. It was of little substance and Craton tried to make more of it than what was there. Neo never said his first comment was sarcastic. I also dont see any major reason to call out Neo at all. Question what he meant, sure... but he kind of explained that already in the post where you are calling him out on his rant. Not going to talk about it anymore though because it is a dumb argument and wildly off topic. series of events sprinkled with my own opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://o.twimg.com/1/proxy.jpg?t=FQQVBhhbaHR0cHM6Ly9wYXRoYWthY2RuLWEuYWthbWFpaGQubmV0L3Bob3RvczIvZjM2YTU3MjktNmRiNy00MGRiLTljOTgtOTlhYThiNjhkZjRjL29yaWdpbmFsLmpwZxQEFgASAA&s=8BVIqFcDHI88uJA9Ws6EtnVWmMFQrt8wWB22Hnnwtok)
