Topaz Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 A report out today says that if the province/cities had acted on the recommendation that were made about the flood of 2005, the damage may have been reduced I'm sure more talk on this topic will come in the future once things have settled and I'm also sure they will act on the advise this time around and its going to cost even more now., http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/06/24/edmonton-flood-mitigation-report-shelved.html Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) you simply refuse to read what's presented to you. Of course I know where you got your number from... I'm the one that gave you the detailed numbers, from Sarcee (the number you should have been using if your context was Calgary, which it was); Alberta Environment numbers certainly more detailed than your summary reference. Who said you made your number up? As you say, "You have gone completely mad". This has already been pointed out to you once... don't you read? You used the higher Bragg Creek number in relation to your challenging the doubling reference... it's approximately 35% higher than the actual Calgary city number. The relative comparison was being made to a 2005 number (for the Bow)... I was initially laughing at you for simply introducing Bragg Creek into a Calgary city context (46km outside of Calgary proper)... that laughing doubled-up when you stupidly did your own doubling comparison (to the Bragg Creek number) by drawing the contrast/comparison across/between the 2 rivers - duh! My comparison was always done with respect to assumptions the numbers in your linked reference's 'top 10 (worst)' table list associated to the Bow River... yes, it was an assumption since your reference didn't explicitly declare the river association to each of the table's entries. And, yes, I most certainly declared my assumption and explained why it was an assumption. So... these were two of your fails - big time fails! keep saying what you want... but if you keep tossing up flops then I'm all over you. You really are the slowest person I know. The 969 number was from the Alberta Environment website for projected values which I gave to you. I even said the actual numbers were going to be lower but I allowed that number to be used to show you how it compared to the worst flood in 1932. Double????? Not even close with the inflated projected number. I can't even consider it a fail...it's a colossal embarrassment!!!! Edited June 25, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 make you? Just how old are you? Again, the reference was legitimate, carried everywhere, repeated over and over again throughout all media types/outlets for days on end... and it's relevant detail was applied honestly. You chose to declare I lied; a "bold face lie", you stated. of course, lost in all of this is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that climate change had a contributory influence in the flood. Again, the questions you won't touch with the proverbial '10-metre pole'... the questions you're running from in all your flaming bluster!: Read my previous post...I clearly said it had nothing to do with global warming. Plain and simple! Hard time with math and reading. Must be tough at your basement cubicle? Quote
Spiderfish Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Alberta flood zone development was a mistake, former MLA says, so perhaps the only way they can stop it from happening again is not to rebuild there. A former Alberta MLA who headed up a flood mitigation task force after the 2005 floods says new development should not have been allowed to spring up in the flood zones. "If you’re going to build in those areas, you take on the responsibility yourself. That to me was the strength of the report, stop building where we shouldn't be building." Does anyone know if the homeowners' insurance will pay for the damage? Is flood insurance a separate policy/requirement like it is in the U.S.? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited to answer my own question: Sadly, it sounds as if most homeowners are out of luck regarding their losses: Alberta homeowners who hope to make claims with insurers for flood damage will be out of luck in most cases. That's because not all flooding is covered under most insurance policies. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says water that comes in through doors and windows — called "overland flooding" — is not covered. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/06/21/business-flood-insurance-alberta.html Some of the most significant damage appears to have happened in the Cougar Creek area of Canmore. The loss is unfortunate, but not all that surprising. I spent 14 years in Canmore and lived close to the area that was affected. I helped build many of the houses that are now damaged and/or condemned. The creek starts back in the mountain valley and is normally a dry gravel bed by the time it reaches town. Every year at about this time, for about 3 or 4 days it turns into a torrent, moving thousands of tons of rock and scree down through town depositing it into the bow river. Every second year or so, the town would bring in heavy equipment in May and start digging gravel, rocks and debris out from around the bridges when the runoff started, to prevent them from being washed away completely. The excavators and hoes would be put in place for a month or two, digging and hauling away rock and gravel, then would be loaded up and taken away till next year. In 2005, they almost lost all of the bridges. This year, they did lose them. I saw this area go from untouched wilderness, to fully developed subdivision. I used to hike up the creek bed through a couple of kms of scree and over boulders the size of small cars to get into the canyon it originates from, wondering where all of the rocks, trees, etc. came from and what kind of force would deposit them into the huge, wide alluvial fan at the bottom of the canyon. After seeing the typical spring runoff, I stopped wondering. Over the next few years, I saw new development encroach further and further into the creek boundary and flood plain. The developers lined the banks of the creek with nice boulders and rocks to prevent erosion, the landscaping looked great. My hike got a lot easier, no more boulders and scree, they were replaced with nice asphalt walking paths and sod. I couldn’t help but notice however, that many of the million dollar homes were built literally right on top of the scree and rock that had been deposited in the past by spring runoff. Did the planners really think that once the area was developed, the spring runoff would respect their effort? It’s hard to understand. I feel bad for the people who have lost their homes, it’s sickening to see some of the pictures and video. But I also wonder if their decision to buy a property on the bank of a creek that dramatically re-shapes itself every couple of years contributes to the loss. Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 just another example of your fabrications. I didn't go anywhere... I posted on March 30 and again on April 2! You claimed I "threatened to leave". Show that... quote that threat - sure you can!!! You quoted what I said; which was nothing more than this: "MLW... C - U - Later! See you on the next side! Perhaps you can apply your wizardry and creativeness to pump-out further wild fabrications as to what you think those few short words mean! Go for it! but really, the waldo is heartened to realize you validate yourself by the imagination you can apply to interpreting my words! And, as before, how desperate are you to troll this quote forward, claim it shows a threat, a pout and exclaim your joyful bliss in my "long extended withdrawal from the board" (for all of 2 days)!!! Man are you desperate! Nice try Waldo! You pouted, left and skulked back into the mix. Do you need a cookie to feel better? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I've never denied climate change, not once. I deny the claim of CO2 being the prime contributor to climate change. That has been my position all along and will continue to do so as long as science is done by consensus. And how would you like scientific debates to be settled? Armwrestling? Parchesi tournaments? Caber tossing? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
waldo Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 You really are the slowest person I know. The 969 number was from the Alberta Environment website for projected values which I gave to you. I even said the actual numbers were going to be lower but I allowed that number to be used to show you how it compared to the worst flood in 1932. you really are the dullest, most obtuse person I've encountered on MLW in some time. I just told you I didn't dispute where you got your number from - you provided your link to it - duh!!! I also linked you to the full/complete detailed data for Bragg Creek (also from Alberta Environment - again, here. And when I had originally done so, do you not recall me emphasizing that there was missing peak data for the hours 07:00-16:00 on June 20 (they're still not there)... that I stated you were using an estimate for the 969. I didn't object in any way/shape/manner about where you sourced the 969 number. Of course, what I did say, what I've repeatedly said, is you were wrong in using Bragg Creek data... data that bears no relationship to Calgary. I emphasized you needed to use actual Calgary data... for your Calgary focus!... and I gave you the link for the Sarcee Bridge data (what you should have used), while suggesting you could also pick the 'below Glenmore' data, calling it your choice. of course, in your dullest way imaginable, your counter to this was to trot-out another study that suggested that, as you quoted, "River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream". Of course, I was more than willing to snicker at you as to what the hell this buys you when your upstream number is already ~35% higher than the downstream Calgary city numbers!!! Do you recognize the distinction between a Biiiigggger number and a Smmmaaalller number... do you know the difference between upstream and downstream... that Bragg Creek is upstream (from Calgary) and Calgary is downstream (from Bragg Creek)!!! just say you screwed up in your Bragg Creek fail! Does it make any difference? Why... yes, yes it does - and you didn't need to look back in history. You simply needed to recognize (and accept) the numbers pointed out to you. You're incorrectly flogging 959 m3/s at Bragg Creek... I pointed out to you the Sarcee number @ 628 m3/s (and the difference is even more below the Glenmore!). Hey now, that's a difference of 331 m3/s!!! Somehow this, your most recent attempt to save face, has you claiming "no significant increase moving downstream". Yup... just that in this flood we see you pushing a number ~35% greater than a proper reflection of the actual flow rate within the city of Calgary! EPIC FAIL... EPIC!! Clearly, you have NO Accountability Now! . Quote
waldo Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Read my previous post...I clearly said it had nothing to do with global warming. Plain and simple! Hard time with math and reading. Must be tough at your basement cubicle? ah yes, you can be absolutely certain that GW/CC had absolutely no impact/influence/contribution on/to the flood... of course you can! apparently, you're not even open to considerations of the possibility, in spite of the related storms holding an inordinate amount of moisture, the jet-stream preventing the systems from moving off, and the blocking event that held them in place. Equally, of course, you ignored all the scientific evidence I put up that suggested... that shows... these are exactly the kind of affects predicted/known to occur as a result of Arctic amplification - the accelerated melting of the Arctic sea ice. Of course, you're so absolute!!! Quote
waldo Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Nice try Waldo! You pouted, left and skulked back into the mix. Do you need a cookie to feel better? like I said, I'm, "heartened to realize you validate yourself by the imagination you can apply to interpreting my words!". Equally, although it's a bit creepy, bordering on your stalking me, I'm impressed that you track my board movements and comings & goings! You have the quote and you know of it months after (did you bookmark it? ). You reveled in claiming I threatened to leave, that I pouted (in my absence) and that for the period I was away, you reveled in my absence!!! Of course, as is my way, I spoiled your narrative by actually looking at my posting history, and pointing out to you there was only a 2 day gap in my posting (over the weekend)!. Two days from a long series of posts on April 2 and the post you're hanging your idiocy onto from March 30th! Of course, you also mentioned something about me "threatening to leave the board"... but you're ignoring my challenge for you to find/quote that "threat". all in all, the waldo is quite captivated with your measuring your self-worth and validation to my posts, my posting occurrence and my presence! Shucks, you're a fan!!! Quote
waldo Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Well at least you seem about as cynical about the future like me. you didn't include my full quote in your reply... my 'cynicism', as you label it, is in regards to the future application of your suggestion. I made a suggestion, you either 1 - ignored it 2 - did not read or understand my post 3 - there is no try. I didn't ignore your suggestion - I believe I called it 'small-scale thinking'. Even if you won't accept the causal link to global warming (anthropogenic CO2), by your very emphasis on adaptation, you might understand it's not going to get better without intervention (mitigation/adaptation). In regards floods, your suggestion, future emphasized, was not to build on 'marshes & swampland' going forward. What does that do for anything/everything already done in the past, affecting the present... for all the persons in the world living in already compromised flood prone areas... persons that are being compromised more today and into the future by the increasing affects/impacts of climate change? I'm simply questioning the practical extension of your suggestion... as applied to the past/present, particularly on a global scale. I say plant trees? Nothing but laughter from you. I say better urban planning as not to destroy the areas that have the ability to control floods. Ignored. So you are right I should make suggestions, but I am wondering if anyone will read them. no - I've been more than clear in discussing deforestation/afforestation with you. Again, I've gone to lengths to show you the scientific foundations behind where it makes sense to 'plant trees'... and where there are no effective gains to be realized. It only makes (measurable) sense to 'plant trees' in tropical/sub-tropical regions... and, again, I've shown you the scientific foundations behind why there are no significant measurable gains (in regards emissions, sources, sinks, changing albedo, etc.) to be realized by 'planting trees' in the Northern hemisphere. And... I've shown you the politicized angles at play with the UN REDD program... and its emphasis on 'planting trees'... where it makes measurable sense; i.e., tropical/sub-tropical regions. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 And how would you like scientific debates to be settled? Armwrestling? Parchesi tournaments? Caber tossing? I would like them solved through science, not by political agenda that created a consensus. Quote
sharkman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Something I found interesting was that in response to news of this flood, it was suggested that it was time for Harper to act, and I suggested that typically Albertans wouldn't wait for government to save them. The mayor of Calgary recently asked for volunteers to help, hoping for 600. 7000 showed up. In today's NP is a story entitled Calgarians Help Their neighbours, "Residents had been instructed to put signs in their windows telling city officials what they needed; gas, electricity, water pumping. Few had patience for all that. As most had the day off work - much of the downtown remains closed and powerless - volunteers swarmed affected communities to help move garbage bags, unsalvageable mattresses, ruined dressers and spoiled food. The thrum of generators and sump pumps were all that could be heard for several blocks in any direction." Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 you really are the dullest, most obtuse person I've encountered on MLW in some time. I just told you I didn't dispute where you got your number from - you provided your link to it - duh!!! I also linked you to the full/complete detailed data for Bragg Creek (also from Alberta Environment - again, here. And when I had originally done so, do you not recall me emphasizing that there was missing peak data for the hours 07:00-16:00 on June 20 (they're still not there)... that I stated you were using an estimate for the 969. I didn't object in any way/shape/manner about where you sourced the 969 number. Of course, what I did say, what I've repeatedly said, is you were wrong in using Bragg Creek data... data that bears no relationship to Calgary. I emphasized you needed to use actual Calgary data... for your Calgary focus!... and I gave you the link for the Sarcee Bridge data (what you should have used), while suggesting you could also pick the 'below Glenmore' data, calling it your choice. of course, in your dullest way imaginable, your counter to this was to trot-out another study that suggested that, as you quoted, "River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream". Of course, I was more than willing to snicker at you as to what the hell this buys you when your upstream number is already ~35% higher than the downstream Calgary city numbers!!! Do you recognize the distinction between a Biiiigggger number and a Smmmaaalller number... do you know the difference between upstream and downstream... that Bragg Creek is upstream (from Calgary) and Calgary is downstream (from Bragg Creek)!!! . I am honestly gettting dumber just listenting to you. How do you find the way out of your parent's house in the morning? I know you don't know how to do math or read but now your memory is failing too? Oh boy. Let's try this one more time and I will dumb it down waldo-size to make this as easy as possible. You started your attack by saying: Again, if we accept your provided numbers at face value, this current 2013 flood's flow-rate is more than 4 times that of the 2005 flood, ~ 3 times that of the second and third worst floods and more than double the flow-rate of the worst previous (1932) flood in our provided 'top 10 worst'. So using the numbers from the top 10 for the Bow in Calgary which you don't have to take my numbers on face value....you can find them at Environment Canada (so i guess your arguements about my so called study fly out the window but don't let me stop you from pouting about this), lets extrapolate here: 2005 flood - 791 cms X 4 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3164 cms 2nd and 3rd worst (1929/1915) - 1320 and 1130 cms X 3 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3960 and 3360 (now that is a 17% difference...so which one is it??) Worst flood (1932) - 1520 cms x 2 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3040 cms. So your ENTIRE PREMISE was saying that the flowrate in the Bow would be around 3,000 cms when the highest point at any reading was 1700cms. Now....that would be a percentage difference of 55%. Seriously??? Your claim is off by 55%????? I tried so hard to help you (because Lord knows you need it so desparately) to make the 55% come lower by using teh Alberta Environment projected number of 1740 for Bow River but of course you jumped on the Elbow River Bragg Creek trying your best to derail this thread as you typically do (especially when you've just been shown the door on the conversation!) You have tried numerous times to hang me on the percent difference between the PROJECTED number that was provided by Alberta Environment at Bragg Creek which was 959 cms versus the actual number provided by the readings which you stated was 692 cms at Sarcee. Do I really need to explain the difference between a projection and acutal. Ok. I will: Projected - Estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends Acutal - Existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed (or shall we say projected) So you are trying to chastize me that Alberta Environment's PROJECTED NUMBER was 35% higher than the ACUTAL number at Sarcee. Of course if you truly wanted to compare you need to go apples to apples you would compare Sarcee 2013 to Sarcee 1932....oh what? Sacree didn't start collecting data until 1979 so good luck with that one!! Oh but you also want to hang your hat on the power being out at Bragg Creek. How convenient? So looking for similar numbers I went with Sarcee knowing it wouldn't be much different than Bragg. And for some reason you don't want to accept data presented by Environemntal Science students at the University of Calgary PROVING that River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream. You apparently don't believe the sky is blue either OR apparently know your ass from a hole in the ground. So...let me show you based on historical and real time numbers. Real time - looking at Alberta Environment today it shows the peak flow at Bragg, Sarcee and Glenmore as being 532, 543, and 555 respectively. Why that is at most a difference of 4%. Are you freaking serious? 4%? Statisitically speaking...that is nothing! Historical - looking at the 2005 flood (which is the same shown by our friends at the University of Calgary however this time I will use the numbers directly from Environment Canada), it shows at their peak in 2005 that Bragg, Sarcee and Glenmore were 308, 338, and 331. 6%. Hmmm....not much difference there. So let's keep track of this....University of Calgary says discharge doesn't incresase significantly AND Environment Canada's numbers show it doesn't increase significantly. Hmmm....but the dillusional waldo disagrees. Seriously....LMFAO! All this Bragg Creek conversation aside....you can't derail the original point that this 2013 flood was at best marginally worse than the 1932 flood which tells anyone with a brain that its NORMAL. But...lets play this out a bit more. Your data point for Sarcee was higher as it was a few days back and it was 692 cms. Oh but wait...you said the 2013 flood was 4 x worse than 2005. However, simple math would tell you that 692 divided by 338 is 2.04 which of course is much closer to 2x than 4x. Wrong again....but you must be used to that by now? You really don't have a clue do you? I honestly feel sorry for you as you take so much pride in coming to this site since its the only real interaction you have with people. However, you clearly don't know how to interact. Your condescending, smug remarks makes it impossible to converse with you. But...that's not something I need to worry about. Afer all you have to deal with yourself all the time. I can pick and choose when I want to humilate you. Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Something I found interesting was that in response to news of this flood, it was suggested that it was time for Harper to act, and I suggested that typically Albertans wouldn't wait for government to save them. The mayor of Calgary recently asked for volunteers to help, hoping for 600. 7000 showed up. In today's NP is a story entitled Calgarians Help Their neighbours, One of the largest problems is that Albertans from all across the province wanted to help. The volunteers couldn't keep up with the request to help and have since turned people away. I personally went down to help family I have in Canmore and was turned away by the RCMP. I don't think the will to help their neighbor is an Alberta thing though. Many provinces have shown this through past trials and with situation in the US. Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 like I said, I'm, "heartened to realize you validate yourself by the imagination you can apply to interpreting my words!". Equally, although it's a bit creepy, bordering on your stalking me, I'm impressed that you track my board movements and comings & goings! You have the quote and you know of it months after (did you bookmark it? ). You reveled in claiming I threatened to leave, that I pouted (in my absence) and that for the period I was away, you reveled in my absence!!! Of course, as is my way, I spoiled your narrative by actually looking at my posting history, and pointing out to you there was only a 2 day gap in my posting (over the weekend)!. Two days from a long series of posts on April 2 and the post you're hanging your idiocy onto from March 30th! Of course, you also mentioned something about me "threatening to leave the board"... but you're ignoring my challenge for you to find/quote that "threat". all in all, the waldo is quite captivated with your measuring your self-worth and validation to my posts, my posting occurrence and my presence! Shucks, you're a fan!!! How do I say this....you are like a train wreck constantly happening. You can't help but watch! A fan though? I'm as much of a fan for you as I am of train wrecks....this only good thing is that its usually you taking the beating. Quote
guyser Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 The mayor of Calgary recently asked for volunteers to help, hoping for 600. 7000 showed up. In today's NP is a story entitled Calgarians Help Their neighbours, I dont think anyone is surprised by the response....are they? Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 ah yes, you can be absolutely certain that GW/CC had absolutely no impact/influence/contribution on/to the flood... of course you can! apparently, you're not even open to considerations of the possibility, in spite of the related storms holding an inordinate amount of moisture, the jet-stream preventing the systems from moving off, and the blocking event that held them in place. Equally, of course, you ignored all the scientific evidence I put up that suggested... that shows... these are exactly the kind of affects predicted/known to occur as a result of Arctic amplification - the accelerated melting of the Arctic sea ice. Of course, you're so absolute!!! The flood is MARGINALLY worse than the 1932 flood which places it in the category of NORMAL. Are you serious? Jet stream, Arctic....I'm waiting for you to start blaming the oil sands for this too. Perhaps it was all those windmills in Southern Alberta. YES!!!! That's is where we should be looking! Damn those green energy devices of death! Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I dont think anyone is surprised by the response....are they? No. Every province in Canada would do the same and has done the same. Quote
sharkman Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I dont think anyone is surprised by the response....are they? I think those that feel dependent on government would lean towards demanding that it remove the water from their basement and count the days that it hasn't been done yet. I've read some posts where the first thought they think of is that government better perform NOW. Realistic people realize that government can't remove the damage of the flood in a couple of weeks, and neither can the insurance companies. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I think those that feel dependent on government would lean towards demanding that it remove the water from their basement and count the days that it hasn't been done yet. I've read some posts where the first thought they think of is that government better perform NOW. Realistic people realize that government can't remove the damage of the flood in a couple of weeks, and neither can the insurance companies. Maybe there isn't enough collective memory from 2005. Those with flooding experience know the drill and exactly what to do. After water recedes, turn off utility supplies, don protective clothing/mask, de-water, remove for disposal all contents and damaged floor/ wall coverings down to studs, squeegee mud and water, Shop-vac, power air circulation for drying, then have a beer (or two). Buy new stuff. No government required. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
BubberMiley Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I think those that feel dependent on government would lean towards demanding that it remove the water from their basement and count the days that it hasn't been done yet. I've read some posts where the first thought they think of is that government better perform NOW.I think you're just making things up. But the government certainly has a role in flood forecasting, emergency management, and, when it's all done, compensation. It appears they've been doing a good job so far too. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
guyser Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I think those that feel dependent on government would lean towards demanding that it remove the water from their basement and count the days that it hasn't been done yet. I've read some posts where the first thought they think of is that government better perform NOW. Realistic people realize that government can't remove the damage of the flood in a couple of weeks, and neither can the insurance companies. IOW, Alberta has some people like everywhere else? Again, no surprise. Quote
guyser Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Are you serious? Jet stream, Arctic.... Why not, thats what brought this water and also what brought a heat wave the likes not seen to Alaska. http://www.wral.com/94-in-alaska-weather-extremes-tied-to-jet-stream/12589361/ Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Why not, thats what brought this water and also what brought a heat wave the likes not seen to Alaska. http://www.wral.com/94-in-alaska-weather-extremes-tied-to-jet-stream/12589361/ And the same jet stream did this in 1932 when the last 100 year flood happend. Was global warming happening then? Was the Artic suffering then? What was the CO2 levels back then? Quote
Topaz Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 It seems many tempers are flaring with the flood, understandingly, and Dave Rutherford got canned for saying something to the effect that his radio was playing music instead of reporting about the flood and information people needed. Apparently, he was going in July and thinking running for mayor. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/calgary-radio-host-dave-rutherford-off-air-criticizing-162438692.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.