Clueless Delusional 'Preppers'

[rstanek]

From what I gather from reading this is, the liberal state of Hawaii was trying to set up the Trump administration to commit retaliation for the state crying wolf, Trump administration obviously made the right choice by standing down, but the press is spinning this as the Trump administration being ineffective, dammed if he does, dammed if he don’t. He will NEVER get a win from the media.....

[MountainGirl]

From what I gather from reading this is, the liberal state of Hawaii was trying to set up the Trump administration to commit retaliation for the state crying wolf, Trump administration obviously made the right choice by standing down, but the press is spinning this as the Trump administration being ineffective, dammed if he does, dammed if he don’t. He will NEVER get a win from the media.....

Yeah. No tinfoil there.

[Walter Tyler]

Hey Walter, the images you post aren't showing up for me; I hit quote to get the link & open them separately. This one I'm copying & reloading here. Dont know if others here can see it.

Attachment 4221
hell, cant hardly read it. oh well.

Not sure mtgirlie... I can see if I can find a dif link for that particular one... if ya wan it.

[MountainGirl]

Not sure mtgirlie... I can see if I can find a dif link for that particular one... if ya wan it.

Nah I'm good, the no pic showing was just an fyi to you - I can always get it the other way, and - THANKS! for editing in the text from it. Yer a peach.

[hawgrider]

edit:
Text for folks/chics that cant see the pic:

Yer pic is working fine on this end.

[MountainGirl]

Some of you may have seen this posted elsewhere:

Yes, I imagine it's pretty hopeless for the cities. Let's break the essential needs down by availability in Boston. Water: The Charles river runs through the center of Boston. Even if it becomes contaminated, the water can be boiled, and our flat rooftops can collect our adequate precipitation. So, water is not a huge problem. Shelter & security: The houses are almost all made of brick or stone, and the 1st floor windows tend to be high, so shelter & security won't be an insurmountable problem. We have very little violent crime anyway. Food: Gardens can be grown on roofs and local parks, and fished/gathered from the nearby ocean and river. Even so, it won't be enough to keep half of the population from starving. Heat: a quarter of the city apartments have working fireplaces, and the rest can improvise something, but lack of wood and house fires will become a big problem. Toilets: Boston has a huge reservoir that will keep the water running for weeks on the lower floors, but after that, there are few places to put human waste. Diseases will spread, likely most seriously affecting those who do not find hygienic solutions.

Though each city and each community will have its own unique challenges, at least 2/3rds of the population is sure to die. -But neighborhoods whose residents work together intelligently and productively will be more likely to survive, though it will still be a difficult and needy life for them. I estimate that a half million, out of the current 2.5 million in Boston, will be able to survive longer than a year. Luckily, I live outside the city and have much more abundant resources.

My personal opinion is the poster, though hopeful and well-meaning, is clueless and delusional. I could easily be wrong (and hope I am) but it's hard to believe a half million would survive - and much of his thinking isn't, well, realistically thought through, imo.

What I'm asking you guys is this: When you run across something you believe is not realistic - do you say something...or just let it go?

Recently here, a few of you ignored something I'd posted and at first I was pissed because you didn't feel like you could tell me I was clueless or full of shit - but now, after reading that guys post, I understand the kindness that might have been to just let it ride. Is that making sense?

Maybe we speak up when it matters, and roll past it when it doesn't... but how do we decide if it matters? Or maybe nothing matters and we just interact when we feel like it.

Any thought welcome, if you feel like replying. If not, no harm no foul.

[Coastie dad]

1. The guy you quoted is a self absorbed academic dipshit that goes to that site in order to school people on our ignorance.

2. He's like the town bicycle. We've all had our ride. May as well take your turn on calling the dipshit out. He's one of the "I read a book and wrote this thesis on urban survival for your benefit" type pricks.

3. Have fun!

[MountainGirl]

1. The guy you quoted is a self absorbed academic dipshit that goes to that site in order to school people on our ignorance.

2. He's like the town bicycle. We've all had our ride. May as well take your turn on calling the dipshit out. He's one of the "I read a book and wrote this thesis on urban survival for your benefit" type pricks.

3. Have fun!

3. I just posted this; we'll see if it turns out to be fun

Hi. I'm curious, since you "live outside the city and have much more abundant resources"... to what end are you taking your ideas? Are you prepping to be an eventual part of a sustaining community...or is this all just a mental exercise for you? What actual things are you doing in the lines of the ideas you propose? A lot of your ideas, while on the surface seem somewhat good, don't really flesh out in reality. But I could be wrong and you might have a lot of real life experience with gathering water on roof-tops, etc... do you? Do you have actual hands-on experience in any of the other ideas you came up with? Thanks!

[Inor]

Some of you may have seen this posted elsewhere:

Yes, I imagine it's pretty hopeless for the cities. Let's break the essential needs down by availability in Boston. Water: The Charles river runs through the center of Boston. Even if it becomes contaminated, the water can be boiled, and our flat rooftops can collect our adequate precipitation. So, water is not a huge problem. Shelter & security: The houses are almost all made of brick or stone, and the 1st floor windows tend to be high, so shelter & security won't be an insurmountable problem. We have very little violent crime anyway. Food: Gardens can be grown on roofs and local parks, and fished/gathered from the nearby ocean and river. Even so, it won't be enough to keep half of the population from starving. Heat: a quarter of the city apartments have working fireplaces, and the rest can improvise something, but lack of wood and house fires will become a big problem. Toilets: Boston has a huge reservoir that will keep the water running for weeks on the lower floors, but after that, there are few places to put human waste. Diseases will spread, likely most seriously affecting those who do not find hygienic solutions.

Though each city and each community will have its own unique challenges, at least 2/3rds of the population is sure to die. -But neighborhoods whose residents work together intelligently and productively will be more likely to survive, though it will still be a difficult and needy life for them. I estimate that a half million, out of the current 2.5 million in Boston, will be able to survive longer than a year. Luckily, I live outside the city and have much more abundant resources.

My personal opinion is the poster, though hopeful and well-meaning, is clueless and delusional. I could easily be wrong (and hope I am) but it's hard to believe a half million would survive - and much of his thinking isn't, well, realistically thought through, imo.

What I'm asking you guys is this: When you run across something you believe is not realistic - do you say something...or just let it go?

Recently here, a few of you ignored something I'd posted and at first I was pissed because you didn't feel like you could tell me I was clueless or full of shit - but now, after reading that guys post, I understand the kindness that might have been to just let it ride. Is that making sense?

Maybe we speak up when it matters, and roll past it when it doesn't... but how do we decide if it matters? Or maybe nothing matters and we just interact when we feel like it.

Any thought welcome, if you feel like replying. If not, no harm no foul.

What kind of a freaking retard would posit that Boston is the place to be during SHTF?!? Boston sucks in the best of times! It would be absolutely uninhabitable if anything bad went down.

First, the city is extremely compressed. Yes, there are "only" 2.5 million people, but they are all living on a piece of ground smaller than Manhattan island.

Second, the brick and stone houses he is so proud of are all the red brick houses that were popular in the early 1800's. They might stop one or two pistol bullets, but empty a 30 round mag of 5.56 into them and I think they will start to crumble pretty quick.

Third, they have very little violent crime?!? REALLY?!?! Has this asshat never heard of South Boston? Those Micks have taken violent crime to an artform.

Forth, all of your artfully decorated brownstones have fireplaces in them. Great. What are you going to burn in them retard? Boston has not relied on wood for its primary source of heat since it had a population of about 50,000. If you could get a reliable source of coal, you might be able to heat about half the homes. But wait SHTF, no coal... Sorry douchebag, you freeze!

Fifth, so you live outside the city with much more abundant resources, so you will be fine... Uh huh. Have you looked at a map recently genius? The topography of the city of Boston means the city-dwellers only have one way to go when they decide to leave the city (for the reasons I outlined in points 1-4). That path of escape will take them right through your abundant outside-the-city area. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to witness some of those Southies raining Irish Confetti (bricks) on your ginger ass when they come through your town.

Next batter...

[MountainGirl]

LOL most excellent post in the wrong forum.