Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter For Not Predicting Earthquake

Posted by Roblimo on from the next-time-the-scientists-might-not-say-anything-at-all dept.

mcgrew writes "From LiveScience: 'Earthquake prediction can be a grave, and faulty science, and in the case of Italian seismologists who are being tried for the manslaughter of the people who died in the 2009 L'Aquila quake, it can have legal consequences.' A group of seven, including six seismologists and a government official, reportedly didn't alert the public ahead of time of the risk of the L'Aquila earthquake, which occurred on April 6 of that year, killing around 300 people, according to the US Geological Survey."

109 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. More Details by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Details from the LiveScience article were lacking, to be nice, and fairly one sided. So I dug up a slightly more reputable article that has these facts:

    Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.

    If this is true, this is decidedly different from telling the public that they don't know whether there is any danger. Saying "I can't predict earthquakes" is fine. Saying "You are in no danger" would probably be interpreted differently than "We have no indications that you are at an elevated risk."

    In the aftermath of the quake, which killed 309 people, many citizens said that these reassurances were the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as leaving their homes.

    More specifically, the accusation focuses on a statement made at a press conference on 31 March 2009 by Bernardo De Bernardinis, who was then deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency and is now president of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Rome. "The scientific community tells me there is no danger," he said, "because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable".

    Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes? That was the basis for claims that the New Madrid fault line is overestimated ... and the above quote employs the exact opposite logic.

    It appears that the crux of this case rests upon "he told me to say" versus "it's not our job to tell the public." But the civil servant who "summed" up the scientist's summary appears to have fallen victim to treating this like a forecasting of the weather. He will probably regret maintaining a neutral report and should have just said "inconclusive" instead of "looks good."

    Vincenzo Vittorini, a physician in L'Aquila whose wife and daughter were killed in the earthquake and who is now president of the local victims' association '309 Martiri' (309 Martyrs), hopes the trial will lead to a thorough investigation into what went wrong in those days. "Nobody here wants to put science in the dock," he says. "We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices".

    He says that the committee had precious information that was not passed on to citizens, for example on which buildings were most likely to collapse in the event of a strong earthquake. Vittorini thinks that those charged are not the only ones to blame, and that further investigations might eventually place greater responsibilities on politicians at the local and national level.

    Indeed, this sounds to me more like a case against Italy's Civil Protection Agency instead of scientists and seismologists. Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:More Details by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Thanks for digging up more information. The headline made is VERY misleading. Telling people these is no danger is worlds away from not saying/predicting anything. This situtation is more like a MD telling you there is no risk for the surgery.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    2. Re:More Details by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It completely depends on context.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:More Details by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      I thought you said it was clear!? How's it look now? ...looks clear.

    4. Re:More Details by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      So the very person filing this lawsuit has publicly acknowledged that the earthquake could not have been predicted and that the people could not have been evacuated?

      I don't know how Italy's legal system works, but it would be laughed out of court at this point in the US. They've already admitted that even if the scientists and politicians did something horribly wrong, that their doing so was not the proximate cause of the damages. Case dismissed.

    5. Re:More Details by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Saying "You are in no danger" would probably be interpreted differently than "We have no indications that you are at an elevated risk."

      Not by me, but then I know that earthquakes do occur from time to time and we can't as yet predict when.

      So I'd interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:More Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes [slashdot.org]?"

      No. Not really. Deformation is ongoing and varies over time and location in tectonically-active areas. Figuring out that a particular motion is a precursor to a major earthquake versus ordinary, smaller-scale earthquakes that happen all the time is extraordinarily difficult, and can usually only be done after the fact. You can notice that there might be an increase in small earthquake frequency and intensity before big ones, but there are many more such increases that peak and nothing happens at all. If this was a reliable way to predict large earthquakes we'd already be doing it. There's a long history of failures in attempts (both big earthquakes not predicted and ones that were but didn't come to pass).

      "[from the article] He says that the committee had precious information that was not passed on to citizens, for example on which buildings were most likely to collapse in the event of a strong earthquake. Vittorini thinks that those charged are not the only ones to blame, and that further investigations might eventually place greater responsibilities on politicians at the local and national level."

      THIS is the problem: an engineering problem. The geologists/seismologists can you what the potential for an earthquake is (a percentage chance per year for a particular magnitude), it's going to be a rough estimate with wide uncertainties depending upon how well instrumented and historically studied the area is, and the geologists/seismologists are going to be able to give the engineers a probabilistic envelope for the typical frequency, amplitude, and duration of ground motion acceleration based on past events. A geologist can also survey ground materials to determine which will amplify, attenuate, or otherwise filter the ground acceleration signal, which will affect any structure built on top. A geologist/seismologist will NOT be able to tell you how the building will respond in those circumstances. That's the job of a structural engineer. If an event is well outside the norm of previously-experienced events in an area, that's what the confidence intervals and engineering safety factors are for. The uncertainty is supposed to be built into the quake model and the structures.

      If this case is about geologists/seismologists not being able to predict an earthquake, then this case is stupid, because as the article and any other geologist/seismologist will tell you, they can't do that for individual events. If this case is about improper seismic risk assessments and a failure of the usual partnership with engineers evaluating the implications of earthquakes for pre-existing and new structures, then it would make some sense. If this case is about PR people not understanding how it works, and misleading the public by statements along the lines of "There is no risk", then that isn't really the fault of the scientists.

      Look, it's Italy. It's a tectonically-active part of the world. There is NO place in Italy without a significant earthquake risk. NONE. To say something like "There is no earthquake risk" would be ridiculous. What I suspect happened is that the scientists said the recent increase in smaller events is no cause for alarm (which is true -- small earthquakes vary up and down in rates all the time with no "big" one following), and then it was presented the wrong way, or people took away the wrong message. It's like telling someone with a beach cottage in Florida that "Just because it was raining and stormy all last week doesn't mean there's any reason to expect you're more likely to be hit by a hurricane this year", and then people suing because their cottage gets flattened the following month -- except that hurricanes are one hell of a lot more predictable than major earthquakes. Furthermore, building a cottage on the beach anywhere in Florida is already putting yourself in harms way. I can't say this often enough: it's the same basic si

    7. Re:More Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.

      Even so, I don't see how that constitutes the level of negligence to be considered criminal. The prosecutors are going to have to prove that the statements and actions/inactions of the people involved were so reckless that they should have anticipated the resulting consequences of the earthquake, a natural disaster which is considered to be an "act of God". It's absurd, and unfortunately it's part of a legal philosophy gaining hold in Western countries that posits that people should be held responsible for any negative consequence of their actions no matter how flimsy the causality chain between the action and the supposed consequence, even if the consequence is the most outlier case of all possible outcomes.

    8. Re:More Details by Savantissimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the earthquake was predicted and the warnings were ignored. Italy 'Dismissed Expert's Quake Warning Sky News / 9:06pm UK, Monday April 06, 2009 / Nick Pisa in Rome :

      Seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani had warned "a big one" was on the way and even toured the region in a van with loudspeakers warning people, as late as last week.

      But he was reported to the police by authorities for "needlessly spreading panic" and also dismissed by L'Aquila's mayor and other civic officials.

      Dr Giuliani based his theory on increasingly high levels of radon gas that had been noted in the area and even posted his findings on his website.

      However, he was forced to take them down and the site has not been working.

      Dr Giuliani, who works at the Institute of Nuclear Physics at nearby Gran Sasso, said: "There are people who need to apologise to me. These people will have these deaths on their conscience."

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    9. Re:More Details by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      How is that? Saying "Go back to your homes, everything is fine" is a whole hell of a lot different than saying 'At this point in time we simply don't know" and these folks were depending on these guys to give them SOME sort of heads up!

      That would be like me saying "Yeah that PC is supposed to release little balls of white smoke like that, its an effect!" and then being surprised when the person who is listening to me because of my knowledge and experience takes the PC home and it burns the house to the ground and kills their family. I doubt very seriously any court would allow me to say :"Oops, my bad" and walk away. At the very least one should err on the side of caution and from looking at TFA it seems they didn't do that.

      So while I don't know if they should be looking at manslaughter, criminal negligence? That I could easily believe.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:More Details by onepoint · · Score: 1

      If I was given to think about the 2 choices you offered : "Go back to your homes, everything is fine" vrs. "At this point in time we simply don't know"

      I would have to think that statement 1 is factual and certain, while the second statement tells me that nobody knows anything and I am at my own risk.

      it comes down to the lack of common sense from the announcer.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    11. Re:More Details by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's really a choice between constant warnings and people coming to ignore them and assurances of no danger to prevent panics.

      There is not a winning option until earthquake prediction is reliable.

      I really salute that scientist who took his own time to try to warn people and was suppressed. However, if you allow it, then nutcases would be driving around with loudspeakers 24/7. Difficult situation. Difficult call.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:More Details by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the movie Dante's Peak.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:More Details by jd · · Score: 2

      If a seismologist states categorically that an earthquake is not going to happen, they are stating categorically that they CAN predict earthquakes (or at least their absence).

      In the US, I seriously doubt that this would be laughed out of court. I doubt manslaughter would hold up, but judges would probably rule that the complainant had a right to their day in court precisely because the experts grievously abused their position of trust by telling a falsehood to placate them.

      (FWIW, I'll link this in with TEPCO's communications. It is not that the reactor content in Japan went AWOL that upsets people, it is that TEPCO abused their position of trust by telling falsehoods to placate the public that upsets people. Placating, versus being honest, is NOT acceptable policy. Ever.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:More Details by jd · · Score: 1

      How about: "We don't know how to predict earthquakes, the science doesn't exist, so to make predictions would be to lie."

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:More Details by jd · · Score: 1

      I believe that telescopes observing Japan detected some abnormalities immediately prior to the earthquake, but one observation isn't enough to tell you much about how often those abnormalities occur without earthquakes, how many earthquakes occur without those specific abormalities or whether in the Italian case even if a suitable telescope had made the observation whether there'd be enough time from it being detected, confirmed and relayed over there to make any difference in evacuation. Or, for that matter, if anyone would have paid attention.

      (It took half an hour to evacuate a small shopping mall in Manchester when a 1,000 lb bomb was discovered at the Arndale Center in the mid 90s that was due to go off. People wanted to finish shopping or eating first. That was an immediate threat to life and limb. What do you think the response would be to "we expect an earthquake sometime, possibly very soon"?)

      Having said that, to say that there was zero risk (when there was no possible way of knowing that) was a blatant falsehood and the person saying it knew that. I have no problem with keelhauling a guy for professional misconduct. It might deter politically-appointed scientists saying what their masters want rather than what the evidence shows. We could have done with more keelhauling in the US regarding Bush's suppression of global warming data and the very disappointing saga of inaccurate claims by Obama appointees over the BP spill, not to mention the FDA's attrocious record of approving drugs that are not clinically proven.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    16. Re:More Details by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Ok, but can we get Harold Camping in Jail?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    17. Re:More Details by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, that was a terrible movie. I wonder if Brosnan regrets taking that job, which seemed to be the death knell for his career.

    18. Re:More Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please downvote, radon prediction is not a reliable predictor for earthquakes, and this guy is known in the seismology communities to be a bit of a loony. He has a history of mispridicting earthquakes, in fact suggesting that this earthquake would occur one week prior to when it did and in a completely different city 30+ miles away.

      I saw him present his findings at AGU in 2009, and came to the conclusion of many others: a broken clock is still correct twice a day. Based on the science today, it is completely disingenuous for someone to claim they can predict where and when an earthquake would occur with accuracy and precision.

      Please don't perpetuate his myths:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction#L.27Aquila_controversy

      http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2009/0408/p06s02-wogn.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/08/science/hopes-for-predicting-earthquakes-once-so-bright-are-growing-dim.html?pagewanted=all

      http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/earthquake-warning-was-removed-from-internet/

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/07/us-italy-quake-prediction-idUSTRE5365GO20090407

      http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/04/06/idINIndia-38908220090406

    19. Re:More Details by pk001i · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually the earthquake was predicted

      If by predicted an earthquake, you mean he predicted the wrong time and the wrong place, then yes, he predicted an earthquake. And this is not the first time he has predicted an earthquake, this is just the first time his prediction was within a week of an earthquake actually occurring.

      Giuliani uses radon as a measure of earths movement, and tries to use increased radon levels as a sign of an impending earthquake. This method has never been found to predict earthquakes, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

      Scientists respond...

      --
      Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
    20. Re:More Details by himurabattousai · · Score: 1

      First: Agreed.
      Second: No one died, but that doesn't make Harold Camping less culpable for intentionally sowing fear and panic based on bullshit numbers pulled from thin air pointing to a made-up date for his prophecy. The seismologists were acting on good faith in accordance with their training and experience. That's a huge difference, and one that does carry a lot of weight.
      Third: Off-topic it may be, but it does make for an interesting comparison.
      Fourth: I'm sure there's a lot of people who agree that the intentional actions of a predatory fraudster should be punished more severely than the seismologists who made an honest, if not slightly careless, mistake. I certainly didn't read the question as a joke.

      --
      "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
    21. Re:More Details by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in the US it would be civil suit which would go forward. Criminal charges would certainly never stick.

      Depending on the court, I don't think I would like to be a defendant in a civil case in the US. Scientists are held in especially low regard by most of the population and anything that can be done to "get 'em" or to serve up a (supposedly) well-deserved cumuppance would certainly be favored by many, many people. Certainly you wouldn't want a jury to get anywhere near this.

      All I can hope is that people in Italy are all uniformily well-educated, never listen to rap music and think getting a high grade point average is a goal for everyone to strive for. Ha ha ha ha. If it goes to a jury, these folks are cooked.

    22. Re:More Details by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      In the US the USGS responds to questions about earthquake probabilities with "We can't predict earthquakes".

      No one can, anyone that claims they can is a liar. Anyone that claims knowledge either way (for or against earthquakes) is lying. We have the barest grasp of plate tectonics and what causes earthquakes. Science indicates the events are entirely random but even if they weren't we simply don't understand the system well enough to make predictions. We're talking stress/strain situations over thousands of kilometers in all directions where stress has built up in a material with varying and unknown properties. Making any sort of prediction is fallacy. Maybe some day we'll have drilled enough holes deep enough into the crust to better understand this but I doubt it.

      Most earthquake research money is spent on better understanding the wave mechanics so that you can predict strength and wave characteristics based on local soils rather than trying to predict when the event will occur. Better understanding of the waves and their properties allows engineers to better design buildings for life safety.

    23. Re:More Details by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "Martyrs"? Come on---somebody fucked up, but it's not like this is a government conspiracy to kill the country. Damn...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    24. Re:More Details by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That would frighten the sheeple. And anyone who believes there is such a thing as zero risk has the brains of a farm animal, and I don't mean the smarter kind.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:More Details by sjames · · Score: 1

      No seismologist made any such statement. A bureaucrat did.

    26. Re:More Details by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      How do I know when to worry about these things? Seriously, I got a Radon detector in my house because the sensor was cheap and people said it can kill. If that thing went off, all I would do is go to an apartment till someone figures out whats going on.

      Hell, if someone started driving around with loud speakers saying there was an earthquake coming I would think he was a nut too. There are SO many nuts out there, its why we have the damn Darwin Award. If he started shouting out his webpage for "proof" I would know he was selling something.

      If your in the know, the best you can do is tell your friends and family to leave for a few days and tell the appropriate people. You can put something in the newspaper but seriously, everyone else is lost:P

  2. Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by killfixx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shenanigans!! Double shenanigans!

    This is why I hate gambling!

    What is the penalty if they had erred on the side of caution and had been wrong? Loss of job? Loss of reputation?

    It would have cost millions to plan, evacuate, etc...

    Holding people liable for an act of nature is a dangerous precedent.

    Yikes!

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

      What about Harold Camping and his failed prediction of the rapture? Are they going to sue for that? Predicting earthquakes is still an infant science. What is next? How about suing astronomers for not predicting the next extinction level event because of a GRB or Asteroid impact? Or suing Oceanographers for the rising tides or depleted fish stocks?

    2. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What if you ran a red light and then claimed someone else said it was safe even though there is no evidence that anyone ever said it was safe?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      How is that analogous though? In this situation there is record of members of the committee specifically saying that the citizens were "in no danger". Your situation doesn't even fit at all.

    4. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Persecution of stock brokers would be a feature, not a bug.

    5. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. Camping personally profited, from people donating money to his cause. As much as I dislike the litigious nature of our society here in the US, I figure he's a valid target.

    6. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 2

      Terrible analogy. The situation was more like telling someone "If you run this red light today, you're in no more danger than you would've been if you'd run it yesterday".

    7. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Execution of stock brokers would be a feature, not a bug.

      There. FTFY.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    8. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Political parties.

      They know what they're doing to us, and, deliberately, they do it regardless.

    9. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      How is that analogous though? In this situation there is record of members of the committee specifically saying that the citizens were "in no danger". Your situation doesn't even fit at all.

      Sure it does. The committee members are saying there is no danger when there clearly was. My analogy also has someone saying there is no danger when there clearly was. It's identical.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Meteorologists have already been sued. About 25 years ago, and successfully too.

    11. Re:Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The issue as I see it is whether they *should* have known there was going to be an earthquake based on available data, and based on whether someone in their field would also come to the same conclusion. They may have not been able to tell, or they could have been negligent. Hard to tell with the published information.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  3. And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Its not like earth quake predictions are accurate. If they cried "wolf" every time they thought there MIGHT be a big earth quake, it would be useless information.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except if you actually found out what really happened:

      Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.

      Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?

    2. Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Indeed haven't some seismologists gotten in trouble for crying wolf about earthquakes that didn't happen. The way I remember it a seismologist warned that increasing seismic activity was warning an earthquake was likely. Then it didn't happen or happened later than predicted. Seismologist gets in trouble for doing his/her job.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?

      The results would have been the same either way. If the seismologists had chosen the third option and told people that 309 people would die, then there could have been a panic, and they get arrested for inciting a riot. If they chose the fourth option ("we know what will happen, but we're not telling you"), then they get arrested for some conspiracy with earthquake makers.

    4. Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The is no evidence that anyone ever said the public was in no danger.

      The actually comment was based on the current release of energy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or we could skip all of your crappy options and picked the one that a proper scientist would say in a case where they don't know for sure either way: "we don't know" but told people to be alert in case something did happen.

  4. "I Thought They Were Suing SCIENTOLOGISTS" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, well... Never mind.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:"I Thought They Were Suing SCIENTOLOGISTS" by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      That's what it was. I immediately thought seismology was a harebrained cult, but I couldn't remember what I was confusing it with.

  5. Slashdot editorial garbage by seasunset · · Score: 1

    Somethings are completely below acceptable standard. Like poor Slashdot editorial care.

    It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen".

    These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem.

    Can we get basic logic right, please?

    This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives. Now it has been joined by lack of basic logic and linguistics here in Slashdot.

    What a dis-service to science.

    Talking about proper science, may I suggest reading say, The Black Swan?

    1. Re:Slashdot editorial garbage by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives. Now it has been joined by lack of basic logic and linguistics here in Slashdot. What a dis-service to science. Talking about proper science, may I suggest reading say, The Black Swan?
      Many? 300 dead on a planet of over 6 billion is a rounding error. As for the Black Swan you should warn your fellow readers to prepare for many chapters of self important pseudo erudite wanking by the author. Unless you meant the book that movie w/ Natalie Portman, not petrified and lacking hot grits was based on.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:Slashdot editorial garbage by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen". These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem. This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives.

      How? Did the victims take especially risky actions that day, believing earthquakes were impossible? In what way did the scientists make the damage of the earthquake worse than if they made no prediction?

    3. Re:Slashdot editorial garbage by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 2

      Please provide the quote where they explicitly stated that there would *not* be a quake.

      The closest it gets is:

      In one now-infamous interview included in the prosecutors' case, commission member Bernardo De Bernardis of the national civil protection department responded to a question about whether residents should just sit back and relax with a glass of wine. "Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc," he responded, referring to a high-end red. "This seems important."

      The odds of an earthquake, and the timing thereof, can't be predicted with any degree of accuracy. I interpret this as the guy telling people "Just go on with your lives as usual". What else are you supposed to do, when you don't know whether it will happen tomorrow, in 6 months, or in 5 years? If you were going to take precautions against earthquakes (e.g. making sure your home was structurally sound), you should've already done so, since you live in a f**king earthquake zone! (The place was apparently leveled by earthquakes *twice* in the 1700s, and had a pretty strong one in the 1950s as well.)

      People really need to take a little more personal responsibility, and not react to anything bad with "Who can we sue?"

    4. Re:Slashdot editorial garbage by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Given that the next "big one" could've been the next day, the next year, or never, what exactly would've been different? You can't very well evacuate a town indefinitely on the basis of "there might be an increased risk of earthquakes, we're not sure". The town is in an earthquake zone, and has been leveled by quakes in the past. You'd think that people would've already taken the proper precautions.

    5. Re:Slashdot editorial garbage by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No shit, Sherlock. Considering that the alternative is to wangst on, all day, every day for all of the Thousands upon thousands of people who die in any given 24 hour period, yeah, you kind of have to choose a cutoff that makes sense.

  6. Re:Who can we sue? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.

  7. Two points by erroneus · · Score: 1

    1. Did they know the earthquake was coming?
    2. If they knew it was coming, did they tell people they would be safe?

    All indications are that they knew the earthquake was coming and that they told the people they were safe. If this is true, then they should be charged. Now, if they were suppressed by someone "above them" then they need to say so. But for these people to say "We think there is an earthquake coming but it will be mild, so you can just go about your business" is irresponsible.

    This is why we have tornado watches and tornado warnings. Most often, a "watch" condition is all you will ever hear or see as tornadoes can form and dissipate before reporting a warning can ever occur. A watch, of course, indicates that conditions for a tornado to occur are favorable.

    I think that if they believed the conditions for an earthquake were favorable, they should have warned the people accordingly even if they stated something like "potential for damage is uncertain." Of course, the legality of statements like that in Italy are unknown to me, but in the US, I'm pretty sure one's ass would be covered well enough.

  8. Fun with summaries by Ironchew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Earthquake prediction can be a faulty science

    I see what you did there...

    1. Re:Fun with summaries by drb226 · · Score: 1
      More fun, in true Slashdot style of taking quotes out of context:

      Earthquake prediction can be a grave

      At least 2 puns there ;)

    2. Re:Fun with summaries by SpacerOne · · Score: 1

      Earthquake prediction can be a faulty science

      I see what you did there...

      Yes, the Captain of the Titanic said, when asked about the safety of his boat: " Even God could not sink it !".

  9. If you outlaw incorrectly predicting earthquakes.. by dmomo · · Score: 1

    Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.

  10. Re:Who can we sue? by LostAlaska · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aren't earthquakes often referred to as "acts of god". So if they want to hold someone accountable, I mean the Vatican is like just down the road...

  11. Great way to increase false warnings to 99.99% by tazan · · Score: 2

    If it were me I'd start releasing automated warnings every morning.

    1. Re:Great way to increase false warnings to 99.99% by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Every morning? Hell, I'd never let the siren take a break! Sure, after a day or two nobody would care about it anymore or even try to sabotage it to get a bit of sleep again, but they can't sue me for that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Psychics by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is my idea for Psychics: whenever some sort of disaster happens and a Psychic comes along claiming to have predicted it, unless he can produce any evidence showing that he tried to warn people beforehand with specific warnings, he should be thrown into prison as responsible for those lives.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  13. Re:Who can we sue? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    And neither did the bridge inspector who told you that an unsafe bridge is safe to drive on, but they should still be held accountable for misleading people when the bridge collapses and kills people. Whether or not they should have gotten this particular charge against them I would be open to debate on but they should definitely be held accountable in some way for making a statement to the public that was not true.

  14. What if by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

    What if someone made a car analogy that made no sense?

  15. Opps there goes science by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 2

    Talk about a chilling effect on scientific research.. The next thing you will be doing is suing Doctors if they get a diagnosis wrong, oh wait we are doing that.

  16. Re:April 1? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.

    There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."

    See the difference?

  17. Oh please don't let this win by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    For the love of $deity, please let the judge hand out some sensible judgment. Else the only thing you'll ever get to hear from geologists is scaremongering lest they be liable should the earth tremble somewhere. How do you expect to get sensible predictions if you sue if they happen to be wrong?

    Imagine you're a weatherman and get sued if it rains after you predict sunshine. So what are you going to predict? Exactly. Rain. All year long. No matter what your data says.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:so what if they predicted it wrong? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    If an expert gives you advice based on the best of their knowledge, they are not liable.

    And is this statement actually based on statutory or case law or just your opinion on the subject? Because there are numerous cases in numerous countries to show the opposite.

  19. Stupid by sshirley · · Score: 1

    That is seriously stupid! It's an inexact science. How can they possibly be held responsible?

  20. great. by spongman · · Score: 2

    I'm not a qualified slashdot commenter, and in no way should this comment be taken to convey any meaning, opinion, or suggestion that could in any way harm the reader. The poster is not to be held liable for any damages incurred by, or after reading this comment. By reading this comment, the reader hereby relinquishes any right to sue, or in any other way claim damages from the poster, and any such legal proceeding shall be brought in a location of the posters choosing. The content of this post is copyright (c) 2011 the poster, all rights reserved. Any reproduction of the comment must contain this paragraph.

    What a load of fucking bullshit.

  21. Re:Who can we sue? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

    There is a difference between being held accountable for a wrong statement, and being held for manslaughter. I'd much rather have no charges than levy a manslaughter charge.

    I'm not sure if they should be held accountable at all. While they should have worded it better, everyone was safe as far as they could tell. If they had stated the risk properly, it wouldn't have mattered, I really doubt it would have saved lives to properly state the risks.

    All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will have the opposite of the desired effect, you'll see students enter other fields than risk a charge that doesn't fit the actual error.

  22. I love my country by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 1

    Idiocracy? No, Italy.

    1. Re:I love my country by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      Videocracy. Look it up.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
  23. Re:Who can we sue? by darkshadow88 · · Score: 2

    Your analogy doesn't work here. It's not like the seismologists actually caused the earthquake. They merely examined the evidence and concluded that there should not have been any danger. Occasionally they get it wrong (besides, the circumstances may well have changed after they said there was no danger).

    In other news, yesterday a severe thunderstorm hit nearby, and the criminals at the National Weather Service didn't even issue a severe thunderstorm watch! I could have gotten struck by lightning! Why don't we prosecute the NWS for putting everyone's lives in grave danger?

  24. Re:Who can we sue? by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

    Also, a bridge is a man-made structure where deficiencies in the structure can be readily identified. Earthquakes don't work that way.

  25. Re:April 1? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.

    Didn't say the USA didn't.

    There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."

    Actually, no. If the Weather channel predicts a path for a storm on a line, and the storm changes direction unexpectedly (which does happen), it would be the same situation. There is a common sense presumption that mother nature is, by nature, unpredictable. Tornadoes can form out of clear skies and strike any time of year, even in winter. The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999..., but there are no guarantees, ever.

    Trusting anyone, ESPECIALLY a seismologist to have an infallible prediction is quite possibly a symptom of insanity. Anyone living in San Fransisco would know that.

    --
    I8-D
  26. Re:April 1? by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

    But sometimes they predict "partly cloudy" and a tornado ends up striking. While they didn't explicitly say "no tornadoes", a forecast of "partly cloudy" (maybe even with a "0% chance of precipitation") pretty clearly says there's going to be no tornadoes.

  27. and the consequences are... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    in the future, seismologists will be unwilling to say people aren't in danger, and causation them to take precautions. When people leave, disrupting routine activity, and nothing happens they will yell at the seismologists and eventually ignore warnings. then, when it really happens, the seismologists can say "we warned you." Of course, some legal wiz will decide it's the seismologists fault that the event didn't happen and hold them responsible for the losses caused by people leaving or panicking.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:and the consequences are... by robot256 · · Score: 1

      If there's a fault line sitting right there, I think reasonable precautions are entirely necessary. If you know there's going to be an earthquake within the next fifty to one hundred years, why not prepare? Especially if lots of your buildings are old and not earthquake-ready, it seems disingenuous to tell people not to worry about them.

      But the intent of this trial is not to punish scientists for their results, it is to determine who told lies to the public and whether the truth would have saved lives. A large part of the problem appears to be in translation, where the scientists said "it might not happen", and the politicians said "it will not happen".

  28. Well, this is the same country that is home to... by dicobalt · · Score: 1

    the original Christian version of the Taliban. One would have to expect occasional insanity. Here's hoping there are more sane people than crazies.

  29. Re:Who can we sue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.

    The fallacy here is that the seismologists aren't in the business of creating earthquakes to make money. Drug companies are. The seismologists also aren't in real-estate. From a scientific perspective they could have worded it differently, but that wouldn't have changed anyone's behaviour. Do I know this for a fact? No. But people do and believe as the please, and if the scientists had said "we can't see the danger" people would still have heard "there isn't any danger". Hell, for so long now people have been ignoring scientists crying wolf it's no wonder there's some reluctance to say there is danger. Besides, maybe their data did indicate that things looked safe? Are they to be held at fault because they simply relayed what their data was indicating?

  30. *Sigh* Italy... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    I guess nothing has changed since the days of Gallileo.

    Italian government remains corrupt top-to-bottom, its judiciary remains primitive banging-rocks-together screwheads. This isn't just one knuckle-dragging "judge"; this so-called "investigation" has been going on for over a year. Hundreds of people have had an opportunity to say "Questo è stupido, e si ferma subito." None have. Any scientists left in that pit of willful ignorance should get out, and get out now, because the tort lawyers are coming. High-tech companies should abandon Italy before they too are targeted my the government extortion machine and--

    Oh wait. Too late. Skilled Italian scientists and engineers, the rest of the world will happily take you in. I'm sure there are many of you, and we need you. Your own country doesn't want you, though. The rest of us? We should stay the hell out of Italy lest we be similarly targeted.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:*Sigh* Italy... by UBfusion · · Score: 1

      I think most of your comments apply to any country, not just Italy. In my country seismologists are regularly gagged by the government and endless heated debates take place on the media after major earthquakes. The main conspiracy theory is that seismologists are obliged to regularly submit their 'predictions' to the govt in sealed envelopes but at the same time they aren't allowed to make any public disclosures.

      No government would ever risk the political and financial costs of a false positive, while at the same time they surely can't afford the financial costs of a true positive. It's a dead end that unavoidably leads to double think and double speak.

      IANAL, but I think that the seismologists are the least guilty in Italy's case, since they were probably just obeying orders.

  31. Re:Who can we sue? by NoSig · · Score: 2

    The bridge inspector should only be held accountable if he failed to carry out his work according to minimum standards of bridge inspecting, which I'm sure are laid out in detail somewhere. The same should be true for earthquake predictors, but since earthquake prediction is much less of a sure thing than bridge inspection, the minimum standards are much lower as well. It's not relevant if the statement they made was true, it is relevant if the statement they made was reasonably justified based on minimum standards of earthquake prediction. If a bridge fails in a way that a bridge inspector is not tasked to inspect, then the bridge inspector is not at fault. The difference is that we have a very good idea about the things that make bridges fail, while we don't know how to predict earthquakes with certainty.

  32. Re:If you outlaw incorrectly predicting earthquake by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.

    More importantly, if you artificially create a liability for scientists in a certain field, there will be less scientists willing to work in said field and be held liable, and thus less research and advancements in that field. Do they want less accurate predictions of earthquakes?

    Also note: sometimes mass hysteria + earthquake is less dangerous than just the earthquake... Perhaps they wanted to warn everyone, but were secretly advised not to.

  33. Silliness. by jkeelsnc · · Score: 2

    What? This sounds like something that would happen here in America. Somehow, its all the seismologists' fault. What? What kind of a whiney, victimized brain does it take to come up with a reason to charge someone with manslaughter in this case. Earthquakes are not easily predicted and certainly not accurately. The statements from the Seismologists should be listened to but with understanding that they are likely off (at least to some extent). Somehow, these cases should be thrown right out the door and not one penny should go to the "victim" families. As for the charges, the judge in this case should drop them and dismiss everyone and throw this case right out the door. Of course, I am sure the lawyers are licking their chops at the chance to make a fast buck off the "victims" like scavengers picking dead bones in the desert somewhere. As usual. Apparently, Itlalians and Italian politicians and lawyers are just as dumb and greedy as they sometimes are in America.

  34. Re:Who can we sue? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    We keep seeing this argument over and over, and it's nonsense. A drug maker sells you a product and is responsible for verifying the safety of the product, you enter into an implicit contract. A seismologist is like a weather man, they can give pretty good estimates close to an event, but even then not always. Any longer period of time and you might as well use a magic 8 ball.

    A seismologist has no responsibility to you, implicit or explicit. At worst these guys should be fired for inappropriately opening their big mouths.

    Manslaughter? What fucking next, sue the weather man because he didn't warn you about a tornado or said a Hurricane wouldn't be as bad as it turned out to be? Bullshit.

  35. Re:Seismology can be a faulty science by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    Agreed. It does stand on shaky ground.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  36. Re:Who can we sue? by eth1 · · Score: 1

    All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will have the opposite of the desired effect, you'll see students enter other fields than risk a charge that doesn't fit the actual error.

    Actually, what will probably happen is that all future forecasts will be useless, because they'll all just say some variation of, "yes it's possible, but we're not sure; take precautions." People will stop taking them seriously, and be just as unprepared.

  37. Re:April 1? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999..., but there are no guarantees, ever.

    Assuming you meant "probability" when you used "chance," you're contradicting yourself. What I don't get is that, since you knew enough to link the wiki page for 0.999..., you know of the "special properties" of it. a probability of 1 = a guarantee.

    Another inherent contradiction, too, in the second part. By speaking in absolutes, you are essentially guaranteeing that there are no guarantees.

    Have I just been whooshed?

  38. Re:Who can we sue? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    The reality is the municipality is at fault for failing to require regionally adequate building design including existing structures. People were killed by buildings that lacked effective structural design to cope with that regions earthquakes, that lack of proper design was driven by nothing more than greed, a unwillingness on the part of property owners to properly reinforce their structures in light of historical risk.

    Those pretty historical buildings might make the tourists happy but they will kill people every time there is an earthquake. The other point Japan maintains a tsunami warning system not an earthquake one.

    It is reasonable to accept natural disasters, how ever you should sanely build to accommodate the more regionally regular ones. In this case historical preservation societies need to be charged with man slaughter.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  39. Italian Law by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Italian Law.

    Could that be the original oxymoron?

  40. In other news... by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Italian Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella has just been charged for failing to warn Bernardo De Bernardis that this would happen before De Bernardis accepted his current job with the Great Risks Commission.

  41. Re:April 1? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

    Please provide the quote of when they said there would be no quake before the quake?

  42. And suddenly, no more Seismologists! by TriezGamer · · Score: 2

    Who's going to volunteer to be the next disaster prediction expert when you wind up imprisoned for it? Yeah, mistakes suck -- but without them, you'll NEVER have a warning.

  43. Guess What Comes Next? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Can we get the Global Warming scientists next? After all, we're set to spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting Global Warming over the next decades. If they're wrong, can we get a refund?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. Re:April 1? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    No, just incorrect. :)

  45. I should add... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    "might be 0.999...", but it will never be 1. In fact, it would never even reach 0.999... except on some computer statistical printout, and even then due to a math error. Survivability is never equal to 1. If you are one who believes 0.999... = 1, then survivability is never equal to 0.999... either.

    The reason I use 0.999... (which you would know the contraversy around it, and would therefore know why I used it and not 1) is to point to the fallacy to say 0.999... = 1, and that is the same whereby a scientist might "guarantee" survivability simply because the statistics appear to be radically in favor of that conclusion.

    --
    I8-D
  46. Re:Who can we sue? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

    I don't know why they are holding scientists liable in this case. Everyone knows everything is the fault of the wealthy, so let's blame them.

  47. That's the point by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

    I am sure seismologists are like other scientists and talk in terms of the probability of an event happening - thus no scientist is every certain of something, they merely talk of most likely outcomes and most likely explanations based on current information and models. However, when the media and other public sources get their hands on the information, they like to turn them into absolutes - and thus if a scientist says "there is an 80% chance of such-and-such happening" and it causes a panic, they are liable for the damages based on the information to provide. However, if they say it is unlikely it gets reported as "all clear" and then suddenly they are liable for the damages when it does happen!

    If such a case was won, it would have a chilling effect on science in the region. Maybe scientists would continue to do research, but you would make it private and never release it to the public due to liability issues - and then what's the point. We'll be back to having the only predictors be religious nutcases like Mr. Rapture is coming in 1994, oops early 2011... oops late 2011, I guarantee it giving us the essential information. While this might make the Roman Catholic church and other religious institutions quite happy, I actually prefer the physics and chemistry that make my eyeglasses and contacts (and in the future, corrective laser eye surgery) along with the pharmaceutical industry that makes my wife's asthma medication over some clergyman's laying of hands. Lets hope the courts throw this one out and instead chooses to go after those who violated the building codes instead...

  48. Re:Who can we sue? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The bridge inspector didn't make the bridge either, so no bridge inspectors should be held liable, as long as they only inspect bridges they didn't make.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  49. Small correction by delta42 · · Score: 1

    "There is NO place in Italy without a significant earthquake risk. NONE."

    Sardinia is not at risk of earthquakes.

    1. Re:Small correction by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Where the hell is Decimomannu anyway?

      (common t-shirt when I was growing up)

    2. Re:Small correction by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sardinia is not at risk of earthquakes.

      Hmmm, I'll check my credentials ... yes, still a professional geologist, as I have been for the last 24 years. I'll check my knowledge of Mediterranean geology ... not terribly extensive - probably in the top 0.01% of the general population and top couple of percent of geologists (because I've worked in and holidayed in various parts of the Mediterranean basin in the last decade, so I've read up).

      I wouldn't make a statement like that without doing a lot more research.

      I certainly wouldn't make a statement like that about Britain, which I know considerably better than I know Sardinia.

      I will grant that the earthquake risk in Sardinia is probably lower than that in most other parts of Italy. But that's not what you said, and you get judged on what you say, not on what you mean.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  50. Re:April 1? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Nostalgia, mostly. Call it a "get off my lawn" moment but I've been reading old usenet archives and remembering when such pedantry would start vast amusing discussions about things like mathematical clarity and logic vs grammar corrections. :D

  51. Re:April 1? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Depends on what it is one is trying to survive.

    If P(x) is the probability of surviving event x, then

    P(Dodo bird attack) == 1

    while

    P(Zombie Apocalypse) == 0.

    So,

    0 < P(Zombie Dodo bird attack) < 1

  52. Sue *all* psychics! by KreAture · · Score: 2

    Everyone who has ever claimed to be psychic should thus be sued for not predicting the earthquakes.
    Further more they are responsible for Fukushima and even for me missing my bus last thursday.

    They should also make it illegal to be wrong.
    That will fix all problems, even those relating to politics as then no decisions made in "the publics best interest" will be wrong and life will be perfect.

    Really, everything will be peachy! Unless I am wrong ofcource...

  53. But But.... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    But, but the Sky IS falling.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.