Posted on 03/09/2005 7:24:37 AM PST by Truth666
It is not yet clear if this has been the first (measured) category 5 hurricane to hit Australia. Eye's detail
It won't be, since it is down to a cat 3 now.
Do you always make stuff like this up? Cyclone Vance was a cat 5 that hit Australia back in 1999.
Looking down at these storms sure beats looking up at them, cool pic.
I was trying to tell him that on his previous hype thread last night (and it no longer has an eye) but reality rarely intrudes on the world of Lies666.
You've got a weakening small-width Cat 3 hitting unihabited jungle, basically.
That's because the media lies about natural disasters! Who are you gonna believe, satellite photos or Truth666?
Is there a judge starving a disabled woman in Cairns, too? ;)
Hmmm. That's a tough one, but I think at this point I'm gonna have a sip of the koolaid and go with the satellite photo. (/sarcasm off)
He said "it wasn't clear". How can y'all call him a liar for saying he's not clear on something?
Do y'all have some inside track into his brain that says, he has all the facts and it was all perfectly clear to him?
You guys call people liars at the drop of a hat, and it's your credibility that's getting hurt.
He said this would be the first Cat 5 to hit Australia. Which is wrong - I pointed out that Cyclone Vance was a cat 5 when it hit Australia in 1999. And this isn't the first time he's made up a factoid like that.
You guys call people liars at the drop of a hat, and it's your credibility that's getting hurt.
Your credibility would be helped by actually reading the thread before commenting.
He did not. He said "It wasn't clear if this will be the first Cat 5"
You can't only read half the sentence and call him a liar because you don't understand English.
It could not be the first cat 5, no matter what. Because there was at least one cat 5 already.
You can't only read half the sentence and call him a liar because you don't understand English.
I understand English just fine. Apparently you don't.
Yes and I'm sure y'all's pointing out history to him, cleared it up. Until then it wasn't clear.
But you are so anxious to call him a liar, you can't understand that can you?
He has done this several times already - making up factoids that are easily disproven by a simple Google search. This isn't an isolated incident.
It's plenty clear. Just google "Austrlian Category 5" and Cyclone Vance is listed within the first four hits. Once again, this is not an isolated incident with the poster in question.
I don't care if the government prints brochures and mails it to everyone's house. If he says, "it's not clear", obviously it's not clear to him.
Maybe you can call him lazy, but you have no grounds to call him a liar when he put a ultra clear disclaimer on the front of his sentence.
Dirtboy, quit throwing dirt.
He said it could be the first cat 5 to hit Australia. That was wrong, not because the storm weakened, but because at least one cat 5 had already hit Australia in the past. What part of that do YOU fail to understand? And if this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be a big deal - but this poster has done this before - making false historical claims about hurricanes.
Dirtboy, quit throwing dirt.
DannyTN, quit accusing me when you both fail to understand what the poster is saying and fail to research the issue further.
Thanks. Concerning the cat 5 issue, this says it all:
The worst cyclone on the east coast for more than a century formed in the Gulf of Carpentaria four days ago.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12477558-1248,00.html
Once again, you claimed that Ingrid could have been the first cat 5 to hit Australia. But Vance was a Cat 5 that hit Australia in 1999. How do you reconcile that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.