"The Day after tomorrow": Sky Magazine should apologise over weatherman schadenfreude
 

Wouldn't you think that after the Michael "The Hurricane" Fish
débâcle, that weathermen would learn to keep their traps shut when
making sweeping statements?

I was looking through my Sky Magazine last night which would have
arrived on my doorstep on about 29 December, although was reading it
for the first time last night.

There's a huge two page spread on "The Day After Tomorrow", their big
bonanza for this month. Although I think they've since, rather
sensitively, decided to pull it. I guess they'll show it next month
now instead.

Of course, the magazine was printed already by the time the tsunami
happened, who could have known. Fairy muff. But what is truly and
sadly ironic is the column beside the article about "The Day After
Tomorrow" down the right-hand side, written by Sky's main weatherman.

In it he goes on to say that tidal waves killing thousands of people
just couldn't happen, that the film is extremely fantastical and that
no one should worry, that nothing like this can happen in our times
although the Maldives could be affected gradually over 50 years or so,
but that no one should worry about such phenomena, etc etc.

Every sentence he goes on, he puts his foot in it more and more.

Of course, how could he have known, how could anyone? But all the
same, it's ironic that yet again a weather forecaster has made a
complete and total tit of himself when he really should have kept his
trap shut. If you have your Sky magazine open it and read it, it's
quite unbelievable.

But what I think is even more unbelievable is that (and I've checked)
there is absolutely no apology on the Sky Website, to for example the
people who are awaiting news of their loved ones in South East Asia as
they opened their Sky magazine on New Years Eve to see whether there
was anything on to cheer them up and take their minds of it.

One would have thought that Sky would have have the sensitivity to put
up a huge apology on their website, regarding their weatherman's
remarks that, whilst innocent when written, in hindsight cannot fail
to be quite disturbing.

No one can fault Sky for intending to show the film (before the real
tsunami). No one can really blame them for printing the now ironic
words of their weatherman.

But for Sky's website to make no subsequent apology to their readers,
all of whom would have received their magazine after the tsunami, is
INSENSITIVE AND TACTLESS IN THE EXTREME.

If there are any Sky webdesigners on this newsgroup (and one would
have thought they must lurk here out of interest) then I hope you take
the hint and stick up an apology over the Weatherman's column as soon
as you go into the Sky Movies website.

What do you guys think????

TRISTÁN

Tristán White wrote:

What do you guys think????


You should get out more?

Regards

Mark

Tristán White wrote:

In it he goes on to say that tidal waves killing thousands of people
just couldn't happen

Well if we're being ultra pedantic and claiming our five pounds, it
didn't happen the way it was written and the way you've portrayed it.
Tsunamis are generally created by vertical displacement of the water
and, although the resulting damage may possibly be increased if there is
a high tide, they don't really have any connection to "tidal" waves as such.

Quick bit of googling should give you any further information you need
to confirm this.

--
somnambulist

Mark A wrote:
Tristán White wrote:

What do you guys think????



You should get out more?

Regards

Mark


Seconded

What do you guys think????

**** happens, and you shouldn`t believe everything in print.

He expressed an opinion, as you have, but his, in retrospect, was clearly
wrong.

Hindsight is an exact science.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Tristán White wrote:

[snip]

You *read* that magazine ? I simply pick it up off the door mat, take it
outside, and drop it straight into my recycling wheelie bin.

"Tristán White" wrote in message
...
Wouldn't you think that after the Michael "The Hurricane" Fish
débâcle, that weathermen would learn to keep their traps shut when
making sweeping statements?

I think you have misunderstood what the weather man was implying.
It seems very clear (to me at least) that he is saying that Tsunamis like
the one portrayed in Day After Tomorrow wouldn't happen any day soon as a
result of climate change, and that is article is totally in the context of
the affects of weather.

Of course the Tsunami in Asia was nothing to do with the weather, but an
earthquake, which could (and did) happen at any time.

So I don't see at all how the Sky weather man got it wrong or made a
"complete tit of himself".
Everything he said is completely valid, even if the timescales or even
global warming itself are debatable.

There's nothing to apologise for.

Loz

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Tristán White wrote:

[snip]

You *read* that magazine ? I simply pick it up off the door mat, take it
outside, and drop it straight into my recycling wheelie bin.

Not read it myself (still in it's cellophane wrapper as it always is!) but
surely the "weather"man is talking about the "weather" causing tidal
waves?!?!? As far as I understand it the disaster that has just happened had
absolutely toss all to do with the weather and was caused by an earthquake
underwater. So the weatherman probably was right, so Sky and the weatherman
has nothing to apologise for!

Oh, and you really should get out more!

Pete

Tristán White wrote:

What do you guys think????

TRISTÁN

There are train crashes all over the world every day, do they stop mentioning trains?

It is indeed a truly terrible disater, but on the grand scale of things it doesn't even compare with
famine & innocents killed by western supplied weapeons ffs.

Get a life & stop reading the Daily Mail.

--�
Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

"If you tolerate this then your children will be next"

Tristán White wrote:
Wouldn't you think that after the Michael "The Hurricane" Fish
débâcle, that weathermen would learn to keep their traps shut when
making sweeping statements?

I was looking through my Sky Magazine last night which would have
arrived on my doorstep on about 29 December, although was reading it
for the first time last night.

There's a huge two page spread on "The Day After Tomorrow", their big
bonanza for this month. Although I think they've since, rather
sensitively, decided to pull it. I guess they'll show it next month
now instead.

Of course, the magazine was printed already by the time the tsunami
happened, who could have known. Fairy muff. But what is truly and
sadly ironic is the column beside the article about "The Day After
Tomorrow" down the right-hand side, written by Sky's main weatherman.

In it he goes on to say that tidal waves killing thousands of people
just couldn't happen, that the film is extremely fantastical and that
no one should worry, that nothing like this can happen in our times
although the Maldives could be affected gradually over 50 years or so,
but that no one should worry about such phenomena, etc etc.

Every sentence he goes on, he puts his foot in it more and more.

Of course, how could he have known, how could anyone? But all the
same, it's ironic that yet again a weather forecaster has made a
complete and total tit of himself when he really should have kept his
trap shut. If you have your Sky magazine open it and read it, it's
quite unbelievable.

But what I think is even more unbelievable is that (and I've checked)
there is absolutely no apology on the Sky Website, to for example the
people who are awaiting news of their loved ones in South East Asia as
they opened their Sky magazine on New Years Eve to see whether there
was anything on to cheer them up and take their minds of it.

One would have thought that Sky would have have the sensitivity to put
up a huge apology on their website, regarding their weatherman's
remarks that, whilst innocent when written, in hindsight cannot fail
to be quite disturbing.

No one can fault Sky for intending to show the film (before the real
tsunami). No one can really blame them for printing the now ironic
words of their weatherman.

But for Sky's website to make no subsequent apology to their readers,
all of whom would have received their magazine after the tsunami, is
INSENSITIVE AND TACTLESS IN THE EXTREME.

If there are any Sky webdesigners on this newsgroup (and one would
have thought they must lurk here out of interest) then I hope you take
the hint and stick up an apology over the Weatherman's column as soon
as you go into the Sky Movies website.

What do you guys think????

TRISTÁN

I think your talking out of your arse.

--
RCE Defiant

"Mark Carver" wrote in message ...
Tristán White wrote:

[snip]

You *read* that magazine ? I simply pick it up off the door mat, take it
outside, and drop it straight into my recycling wheelie bin.

Yeah. Have you had Sky long enough to remember many years ago when
the Sky magazine was actually a subscription option? You could save a
pound or two every month by electing not to receive the magazine. Ah, the
good old days.

- Julian

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:00:58 -0000, "Nige"
wrote:
Get a life & stop reading the Daily Mail.


Read the Independent every day mate. Wouldn't wipe my arse on the
Mail.

I won't reply to each and every one of the smug crass answers to my
post. I'll just send this one as a summary.

First of all, it'll probably be my last to this group. What an
unfriendly bunch you all are. I write my first post and all I get back
is a load of crap about how I should get out more (lol you *really*
don't know me... I get out far too much!) that I should stop reading
the Mail (I wouldn't wipe my arse on that sensationalists bull****
rag, I read the Independent) etc etc. Nice people you are!

I didn't want to be too maudlin' but I have a mate out there who is
holidaying in Phuket over Xmas and New Year and I haven't heard from
him, his mobile isn't working or anything. So when I saw that report,
I was pretty taken aback, but accepted of course that how could Sky
know... but when I went on to their website, I was much more annoyed
at there being no apology.

And I thought, well this is only someone I know from raves, clubbing
etc, not a close friend or relative, so how would someone who may have
lost someone really really close going to feel.

See, perhaps before you take turns in making crass remarks about the
first post of a new member to your newsgroup, you could perhaps not be
so bloody rash/rude/predictable.

Over and out. I don't think I'll post here again. Well done, enjoy
your little clique.

Tristán White wrote:

Over and out. I don't think I'll post here again. Well done, enjoy
your little clique.

Post, don't post, no one gives a stuff - same as any newsgroup. And
describing an unmoderated newsgroup as a clique is about as sensible as
your first post.

Regards

Mark

"Tristán White" wrote in message
...
I won't reply to each and every one of the smug crass answers to my
post. I'll just send this one as a summary.

I notice that you failed to address any of the non crass answers though.
Such as the fact that the Tsunami was caused by an eathquake, not the
weather, so your whole rant against Sky was misplaced anyway....

bye

Loz

"Tristán White" wrote in message
...
I won't reply to each and every one of the smug crass answers to my
post.

translation =because i dont ahve good replies to them


I'll just send this one as a summary.

translation = i'll complain about something else instead.

First of all, it'll probably be my last to this group.

Probably? Jeez, there's determination for you!

What an
unfriendly bunch you all are.

transation= you *******s disagreed with me

I write my first post and all I get back
is a load of crap about how I should get out more (lol you *really*
don't know me... I get out far too much!) that I should stop reading
the Mail (I wouldn't wipe my arse on that sensationalists bull****
rag, I read the Independent) etc etc. Nice people you are!

I didn't want to be too maudlin' but I have a mate out there who is
holidaying in Phuket over Xmas and New Year and I haven't heard from
him, his mobile isn't working or anything.

and the relevance to that of global warming induced tidal waves
is........**** all.


So when I saw that report,
I was pretty taken aback, but accepted of course that how could Sky
know... but when I went on to their website, I was much more annoyed
at there being no apology.


They should apologise for saying that global warming wouldnt create a
massive tidal wave that swamped New York?
hmmmmm, very strange.


--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

In it he goes on to say that tidal waves killing thousands of people
just couldn't happen,

He doesn't say that at all. Your affectation of outrage is silly.

loz wrote:
"Tristán White" wrote in message
...

I won't reply to each and every one of the smug crass answers to my
post. I'll just send this one as a summary.


I notice that you failed to address any of the non crass answers though.
Such as the fact that the Tsunami was caused by an eathquake, not the
weather, so your whole rant against Sky was misplaced anyway....

Since when have cold, hard facts ever stopped someone from having a
right old whinge?

--
somnambulist