SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (138127)9/9/2005 4:08:07 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794011
 
Her reasoning as I understand it is that Red Cross and Salvation Army personnel would get in the way of the necessary evacuations.



To: KLP who wrote (138127)9/9/2005 4:48:17 PM
From: Constant Reader  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794011
 
You really could make a good case for not letting people know in advance that they would be there, as some who would otherwise evacuate might decide it was safe to remain because the Red Cross was there, but I'm not so sure that there is a good argument for preventing them being there, but "unadvertised."



To: KLP who wrote (138127)9/9/2005 5:08:51 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794011
 
They moved the people out of the city where it was unsafe to the outer areas to be serviced by the Red Cross rather than have the Red Cross go into the city and delay further evacuation. The Red Cross head discussed this at some length on TV about a week ago.

The outrage machine has just now gotten hold of this and is shaking and shaking it....


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News