Sorry, I have to disagree. Both are random and equally unpredictable.No, it wouldn’t. That’s an awful example. One is a geographical and documented characteristic of a region and the other was a random act of terrorism.
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Sorry, I have to disagree. Both are random and equally unpredictable.No, it wouldn’t. That’s an awful example. One is a geographical and documented characteristic of a region and the other was a random act of terrorism.
BB's twofer:Think about what you said for a moment. BB just scored a two-fer.
Not keen on traveling to NY or Vegas either - did not say I wouldn’t, but we live in a time when concern is warranted.What's your problem?
Worried that some religious fanatic will drive a truck into you?
Or that a deranged person with an arsenal of assault weapons will spray bullets everywhere?
SMH
I'd worry about the dental hygiene...but that's just me.What's your problem?
Worried that some religious fanatic will drive a truck into you?
Or that a deranged person with an arsenal of assault weapons will spray bullets everywhere?
SMH
He could have said the same thing about earthquakes in California. Would californians have gotten mad? actually yeah probably
Sorry, I have to disagree. Both are random and equally unpredictable.
Can you predict when the next earthquake in Mexico city will occur with any greater certainty than when the next terror attack in Boston will occur?Earthquakes and volcanoes have been a characteristic of the geographical location that we now call "Mexico" for literally eons. Terrorist bombings are geographically independent.
I always thought it was insensitive of the NFL when they moved the 49ers game to another field after the Loma Prieta Earthquake.
Oct 22 1989 49ers vs Pats.
Earthquakes and volcanoes have been a characteristic of the geographical location that we now call "Mexico" for literally eons. Terrorist bombings are geographically independent.
Can you predict when the next earthquake in Mexico city will occur with any greater certainty than when the next terror attack in Boston will occur?
But regardless of probabilities... my point is that what he said was lame and did not need to be said. It would be just as valid to be thankful to be not hit with a terror attack in Boston and not want to play in Foxborough but it would still be a lame thing to say.
You seem to be using "geographically independent" synonymously, or in lieu of, "unpredicatable", when in reality that logic is faulty.
While terror attacks aren't a result of geography, they do vary from place to place with certain statistics and variables that serve as predictors of when, and more so, where they'll occur.
Can they be predicted in an extremely accurate way? No. But neither can earthquakes.
Due to the geology, central and southern Mexico (including Mexico City) experience an M4.2 quake (or greater) almost daily. The same is true for California. It's a virtual certainty that one will occur if you're in either area for 48 hours or more. They are not preventable. The precise location and time and magnitude are unforeseeable. They will occur whether humans exist or not.
Due to the topography of North America, the Boston area experiences a dangerous snowstorm nearly every December and/or January and/or February. Same for Minneapolis. It's a virtual certainty that you'll experience one if you're in either area during the meteorological winter. They are not preventable. But, we CAN see such snowstorms coming well in advance (most of the time). They will occur whether humans exist or not
While it's highly likely that another terrorist bombing will occur somewhere very soon (most likely in the Middle East), there is no unalterable geological or topographical "forcing factor" dictating that another terrorist bombing WILL occur - ever - in the Boston area. We CAN sometimes see them coming, and they ARE, to some degree, preventable. They occur ONLY if humans exist.
The comparison between quakes in Mexico and snowtorms in Boston is far more apt than a comparison of quakes and terrorist bombings.
The "In Bill we trust" stuff goes to far when you can't look at something like this reasonable. Dumb foolish comment by Belichick, really not even rooted in reality in fact.Fair enough, you make some reasonable points and I think your logic is a bit more nuanced and sensible than my statement. I don't disagree with anything in your post. That said, I still think Belichick's statement was insensitive and offensive, regardless of whether it was intended that way. I don't think Belichick is a bad person, or that this remake was intended to be malicious. That doesn't change the fact that the statement itself was wrong given the context.
If the coach of a team traveling to the Deep South or Florida made a remark along the lines of, "I'm just glad we didn't have to deal with any hurricanes down here", recently after a hurricane that claimed and destroyed lives, it would be considered insensitive.
Hypothetically, if the coach of a team that traveled to Foxborough said "I'm just glad we didn't get hit by a blizzard" in the aftermath of a deadly blizzard, Patriots fans would be perturbed, and perhaps deeply offended if they were close to someone who lost their life in said hypothetical blizzard.
it is silly that people are making a big deal. But it is also true that it was stupid comment by someone who usually does not talk much but actually makes smart comments when he does, not stupid ones, like his earthquake comments.Yea I am sure there are just many, many tens of millions of Mexicans outraged. A foreigner coming to Mexico and referencing in a light hearted manner the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (of historical reality), Mexicans all over the country are just outraged (orrrrr the far far less likely explanation that the outrage machine manned by a comparative tiny number continues to churn its wheels).
and a 4thOk so I'm assuming we're losing a first round pick for this right?
That said, I still think Belichick's statement was insensitive and offensive, regardless of whether it was intended that way.