The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is tradegy of a phenominal scale. I cannot even contemplate that many human lives ending at once, and on christmas. Its a sick thing.
******
127,000 was the final count, although its feared it was somewhere closer to 150,000. All I want to add is not to those who died, but for the survivors, I hope things don't get to hard for you and I wish you the best of luck.
******
127,000 was the final count, although its feared it was somewhere closer to 150,000. All I want to add is not to those who died, but for the survivors, I hope things don't get to hard for you and I wish you the best of luck.
Page:
In a way mentioning Richard and his family makes it more real to us as a public anyway. 70,000 is a tragedy, but they're all nameless to us, they were as good as non exsistant to us (personally) before the situation, wheras Richard already exsisted and we knew him to be a person with a family, we knew his job and had seen his films, this helps us to some extent share his pain and therefor understand the realism of everything.
JFH wrote:
> I agree and it must be devestating for him but there must be people in
> Asia that are now totally alone and have lost all of their
> friends, family and neighbours.
And their homes and any way to make a living, don't forget.
> I can see how mentioning Lord Attenborough may make it slightly
> easier for the British public to understand but I also think that it
> may divert peoples attention away from the full scale of what has
> happened.
Same here. Yes, it does show how something like this affects everyone, but it does loose the focus on all the thousands of people who have absolutely nothing left.
And it's a huge, terrible tragedy whichever way you want to look at it.
> I agree and it must be devestating for him but there must be people in
> Asia that are now totally alone and have lost all of their
> friends, family and neighbours.
And their homes and any way to make a living, don't forget.
> I can see how mentioning Lord Attenborough may make it slightly
> easier for the British public to understand but I also think that it
> may divert peoples attention away from the full scale of what has
> happened.
Same here. Yes, it does show how something like this affects everyone, but it does loose the focus on all the thousands of people who have absolutely nothing left.
And it's a huge, terrible tragedy whichever way you want to look at it.
luscious_limey wrote:
> hey munn if u think i'm talkig crap look at the drivel u written
OK, so I've looked.
Now what?
> hey munn if u think i'm talkig crap look at the drivel u written
OK, so I've looked.
Now what?
Haldisa wrote:
> munn wrote:
>
> If a tree falls in the woods and no-one's around to hear it, does it
> make a sound?
>
> Yes
How do you know though?
No-one is around to hear it, and a tape recorder or whatever counts as something to record sound, if it wasn't there, would it make a sound?
> If there was nobodyliving around that area of Asia, we wouldn't know
> if it really had happened.
>
>
> Yes we would, it would still be recorded by a seismograph somewhere
> else on Earth.
But in this instance, the seismograph is the tape recorder in this instance.
> munn wrote:
>
> If a tree falls in the woods and no-one's around to hear it, does it
> make a sound?
>
> Yes
How do you know though?
No-one is around to hear it, and a tape recorder or whatever counts as something to record sound, if it wasn't there, would it make a sound?
> If there was nobodyliving around that area of Asia, we wouldn't know
> if it really had happened.
>
>
> Yes we would, it would still be recorded by a seismograph somewhere
> else on Earth.
But in this instance, the seismograph is the tape recorder in this instance.
I agree and it must be devestating for him but there must be people in Asia that are now totally alone and have lost all of their friends, family and neighbours.
I can see how mentioning Lord Attenborough may make it slightly easier for the British public to understand but I also think that it may divert peoples attention away from the full scale of what has happened.
I can see how mentioning Lord Attenborough may make it slightly easier for the British public to understand but I also think that it may divert peoples attention away from the full scale of what has happened.
3 family members is a hell of a lot.
I did find it sad that a 14 year old girl has died but thousands of younger children have died also, not with famous relatives admittedly, but I think a headline along the lines of '70,000 dead' would have been more hard hitting.
JFH wrote:
> Daily Mail's headline: Attenborough's Nightmare
>
> Yes, I feel sorry for him, I really do, but surely mentioning the
> other 70,000+ people that have died would've been better. I don't see
> any real reason why his family should be seen as more important than
> all of the other innocent people. Obviously, I'd expect a specific
> mention for them in the article but taking the headline seems wrong
> to me.
Like I said, Its got something to do with feeling you know Lord Attenborough, plus its human interest with him in the public eye and what not. Poor girl.
> Daily Mail's headline: Attenborough's Nightmare
>
> Yes, I feel sorry for him, I really do, but surely mentioning the
> other 70,000+ people that have died would've been better. I don't see
> any real reason why his family should be seen as more important than
> all of the other innocent people. Obviously, I'd expect a specific
> mention for them in the article but taking the headline seems wrong
> to me.
Like I said, Its got something to do with feeling you know Lord Attenborough, plus its human interest with him in the public eye and what not. Poor girl.
O and I've just finished reading this story
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13273297,00.html
I don't know if its just the picture with the girl in it or the aid of also feeling you (sort of) know Lord Attenborough but that seems pretty hard hitting.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13273297,00.html
I don't know if its just the picture with the girl in it or the aid of also feeling you (sort of) know Lord Attenborough but that seems pretty hard hitting.
Daily Mail's headline: Attenborough's Nightmare
Yes, I feel sorry for him, I really do, but surely mentioning the other 70,000+ people that have died would've been better. I don't see any real reason why his family should be seen as more important than all of the other innocent people. Obviously, I'd expect a specific mention for them in the article but taking the headline seems wrong to me.
Yes, I feel sorry for him, I really do, but surely mentioning the other 70,000+ people that have died would've been better. I don't see any real reason why his family should be seen as more important than all of the other innocent people. Obviously, I'd expect a specific mention for them in the article but taking the headline seems wrong to me.
Page: