FA+
Shop
My thoughts on the MWFF matter.....
11 years ago
I AM OPEN FOR COMMISSIONS! Take a look at my price sheet with links to examples!!
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5868382/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5868382/
I want to take a moment, if I may, to talk about the gas attack that happened at MWFF.
As much as I was lambasted on Twitter for giving an opinion, I want to take a moment here to say a few things.
I am sure that I will get a lot of negative responses to this, and I can only hope that my friends will take this with a grain of salt and not make any rash decisions based on what I say here.
Before I start, I want to say that I am sorry about to all the people who were injured or inconvenienced by this. It was not funny, it was not appropriate, and it was a terrible to to happen, and I hate that it had to potentially ruin people's con experiences, especially for the first time con goers.
So... here goes...
First off, people are saying it was a terrorist act.
Here is a definition.
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
What happened in Chicago fits none of these criteria. The only one it comes close to is #2, but in all honestly by the videos that have been posted, it looks like most people were either amused or slightly annoyed, not induced into a state of fear.
There was no coercing, no statement of political purposes, and no resistance of government.
By definition, it WAS NOT a terrorist attack.
As with anything that happens in the furry fandom, I have heard many rumors going around, someone had to be cut ot of thier fursuit, some people were throwing up blood, and others.
There HAS NOT BEEN ANY substantiating evidence of these things happening.
Yes, people were complaining of nausea and dizziness, and 19 people (there is no listing of if they were staff, con goers, or even other people in the hotel) were went to the hospital. From the newspaper articles that can be found online, 18 of the 19 were released the next morning. There is no information on whether the last person is still in the hospital or not as of this writing.
My thought is, that most likely it was one of two things:
1. It was a random person, either with a beef against furs or dogs (as there was apparently a dog show there as well according to newspaper reports) and they wanted to cause problems.
2. It was a fur or an ex fur who wanted to cause problems or thought it would "be funny" to cause problems at a con.
All I can ask is this.
PLEASE think before you write something or say something that you don't know to be true. Don't spread rumors, it only makes things worse.
If you have read this far, thank you very much for hearing what I had to say. After what happened on Twitter I felt like I needed to get out my thoughts in a manner that takes much more than 140 characters.
Please, if you are going to respond, do so in a constructive, adult manner. It is okay if you disagree with me. But leave insults and name calling out of it.
Thank you.
As much as I was lambasted on Twitter for giving an opinion, I want to take a moment here to say a few things.
I am sure that I will get a lot of negative responses to this, and I can only hope that my friends will take this with a grain of salt and not make any rash decisions based on what I say here.
Before I start, I want to say that I am sorry about to all the people who were injured or inconvenienced by this. It was not funny, it was not appropriate, and it was a terrible to to happen, and I hate that it had to potentially ruin people's con experiences, especially for the first time con goers.
So... here goes...
First off, people are saying it was a terrorist act.
Here is a definition.
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
What happened in Chicago fits none of these criteria. The only one it comes close to is #2, but in all honestly by the videos that have been posted, it looks like most people were either amused or slightly annoyed, not induced into a state of fear.
There was no coercing, no statement of political purposes, and no resistance of government.
By definition, it WAS NOT a terrorist attack.
As with anything that happens in the furry fandom, I have heard many rumors going around, someone had to be cut ot of thier fursuit, some people were throwing up blood, and others.
There HAS NOT BEEN ANY substantiating evidence of these things happening.
Yes, people were complaining of nausea and dizziness, and 19 people (there is no listing of if they were staff, con goers, or even other people in the hotel) were went to the hospital. From the newspaper articles that can be found online, 18 of the 19 were released the next morning. There is no information on whether the last person is still in the hospital or not as of this writing.
My thought is, that most likely it was one of two things:
1. It was a random person, either with a beef against furs or dogs (as there was apparently a dog show there as well according to newspaper reports) and they wanted to cause problems.
2. It was a fur or an ex fur who wanted to cause problems or thought it would "be funny" to cause problems at a con.
All I can ask is this.
PLEASE think before you write something or say something that you don't know to be true. Don't spread rumors, it only makes things worse.
If you have read this far, thank you very much for hearing what I had to say. After what happened on Twitter I felt like I needed to get out my thoughts in a manner that takes much more than 140 characters.
Please, if you are going to respond, do so in a constructive, adult manner. It is okay if you disagree with me. But leave insults and name calling out of it.
Thank you.
Perhaps since it was in Chicago there might be a write up in the Chicago paper if they find the culprit, but I severely doubt it.
I have no idea if that information is correct, but that other thing I read does make it sound more plausible...
Very interesting.
If there are any updates on this matter I'll likely hear it directly from him. In the meantime, I'll treat any rumours as to the cause of this incident as purely speculation, unless official word is actually released by convention staff.
My heart does go out to all those affected by this incident
(I would have liked to of attended that convention but wasn't able to afford to go)
My heart goes out to them as well, but it sounds like it was pretty minor, it could have been A LOT worse.
I'd love yo go to MWFF. I went in 2001, but it is just too far away for me, considering I am not a flying ott.
*plays wicked witch music*
One of the biggest reasons why I believe it may be considered terrorism is because of the method the person allegedly used. Chlorine gas can be considered to be a chemical weapon (That 'was' used as a chemical weapon in WW1) and I believe is prohibited by the Geneva Protocol.
I guess for me, this isn't just some prank that people would laugh at or get mildly irritated. This was something that potentially could have harmed someone's health. This was flat out poisoning random citizens at a convention... Regardless of it it was lethal or not, it's still poisoning them when you think about it.
As for the definition of terrorism, I think this case fits perfectly. I tend to go by what was documented here.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of
a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them;
So I guess to me, if it's not terrorism, what is it? I think it's certainly elevated past the point of a prank. :(
Also, I'm just giving reasoning for what I'm saying. Not saying you should change your mind or anything but I'm curious and figured I'd share my opinion on it a lil... XD
I have to disagree when you say that it couldn't be a simple prank. It very much COULD be a simple prank, one that got WAY out of hand for whomever decided that they wanted to do this.
There is a big difference between the lethal doses and potencies of gas that is used in war, and the simple chemicals that people can easily buy from.. say, a pool supply warehouse or somewhere like that, where I would assume that something like this would come form.
Yes, it can cause dizziness and nausea, but in the amount we are talking about here, there will not be any lasting physical effects.
You ask if it isn't terrorism, what is it? As I said, more likely it was a prank gone bad. or someone who wanted to cause some trouble, but there is a BIG gap between causing trouble and going so far as to call something terrorism. It isn't that black and white.
Does it matter weather or not it's lethal or not? Does someone 'have' to die before we call it an act of terror or an act intended to intimated or scare a group of individuals?
To me, this isn't a simple prank. Even if the guy only intended it to be a prank, potentially bringing harm indiscriminately to a group of individuals via a toxic chemical crosses the line. Now of course, it's nothing on the level of 911, and I'm not comparing it to that... but for me, I believe terrorism can happen on multiple levels and to varying extremes and I can see how can be considered to be a very minor act of terrorism or at the very least, a criminal act against a group or citizens.
Also when it comes to the meaning of terrorism, I'm sure there are hundreds of sources that will say different things. I just picked one that was documented and recognized by an official government source.
Let me tell you a story about when I was in high school.
There was an assembly, and every single student and staff were in the gym. And while we were there, someone let off some stink bombs.
This was only a prank, yet, it was still a "chemical attack" that cause mostly benign symptoms, obviously along with the smell, watery eyes, nose and nose for some who were close to them (thankfully not me)
It id entirely possible that someone just wanted to cause minor issues like these and either was not aware of the potentially more dangerous symptoms or simply didn't think it through fully.
No, no one has to die in order for something to be terrorism, but that does not mean that this is terrorism either.
and yes, there are many sources with different meanings, but I chose the literal meaning that you would see if you looked it up in a dictionary.
Since none of us knows the motive behind this, or if it actually went off as the person or persons responsible planned, we really can't be sure if it was intended as terrorism. They might simply have been planning to kill someone with no prior warning, and may not have been thinking in terms of spreading terror. Until they catch who did it, we probably won't know.
Whether it was technically terrorism or not, it was still a very bad thing for someone to do. Were they trying to scare people (terrorism)? Was it a personal grudge because someone was dropped by a mate? Was it a furry hater, or was it done by a furry? Was it someone lashing out at the hotel for bad service they got in the past? Or, was it some really dumb asshole who thought it was a good idea for a prank? They belong behind bars in any case, since their actions hurt people and put others at risk.
All we can hope is that whoever did it is dumb enough to admit it to someone and get turned in, or that they left evidence that will be traced back to them.
There are MANY overused words, and terrorism is on of them.
I think many people, including me would LOVE to know this person's motive, what in the hell they were thinking when the did something this stupid.
Honestly though, it was just a glass jar, if the person was smart enough to wear gloves and not leave fingerprints, I am not sure how the will find who it is (unless we are lucky enough that the stairwells have cameras, but I severely doubt that.)
I also think that they are less likely to look that hard, unless a crime results in people being killed, or there is a repeating pattern. We don't know what the authorities are aware of though. The sad thing is that the followup to events like this rarely make the news, unless deaths are involved. We aren't likely to learn if the person is caught, unless in happens in the next few days. That's just the way the news seems to work.
And I think you are right that they may not use EVERY resource with something like this as opposed to a mass casualty incident.
The event appeared on both ABC and NBC national news, but only got about ten seconds before they were on to the next story.
SO most likely this is an non issue.
The hotel is not giving refunds out of its own pocket, no. But they may be able to make an insurance claim and pay restitution at a later date. Same with the convention.
The point I'm trying to make is that most likely in both cases, except with expensive extra cover, most insurers have an exception where they don't pay out for anything deemed to fall under terrorism, war or civil unrest. If this is classified as a terrorist attack (and I'm not saying it will), that means everybody is definitely, 100% SOL. The only thing they can hope for then is the perp has enough money to make restitution payments (which is probably very unlikely).
But in this case, since its a con, they would probably get the hotel separate from travel and car rental or whatever because the con has a special rate for the hotel, so if the person booked a trip and didn't have the hotel under their travel package, and the issue happened in the hotel, then I dont think it would be covered under the insurance.
Does that make sense?
Obviously trips to furry coventions are not package holidays, and are not covered. Your travel insurance policy still does apply though, as it's independent from the holiday. If the hotel had to be shut and alternative accommodation needed to be found, then most policies would pay for that if necessary. In this case, probably only the higher level policies will pay out anything, but that's beside the point.
I hope that clears things up. Sorry if I sounded rude or hostile in my previous post, things like this get me riled up sometimes. Thank you for your calm and measured response.
Admittedly since i don't fly any more, I really don't book whole travel packages (with the exception of the Disney trip a group of us takes in Feb.) So I am far far far from an expert on travel. I drive where I need to go and just book whatever hotel is there (con hotel, etc.)
You sound like you know more about that than I do, to be honest.
This wasn't some kind of "I'm going to mix these random cleaning products" sort of thing. The form of chlorine that you need to create this type of chemical weapon (let's not mince words. Chlorine gas was used in the world wars against our enemies), while not hard to get, does not exist in commercial cleaning products.
This wasn't an inconvenience. This was, ultimately, an attack. If it hadn't been reported when it was, there's very real possibilities that someone dies.
Certainly the FBI agent who spent all day Sunday at the convention isn't treating this as a prank. The 15 ambulance crews, the 4 police departments, 3 hazmat teams, and the 3 fire departments didn't treat it as a prank. They treated it as it was: an attack with a chemical weapon.
I would go so far as to say that by trying to write it off as a prank not only ignores the actual severity of what happened, but tacitly condones it. By shrugging it off as a prank, you're suggesting that while it's a behavior that you personally don't approve of, it's just a matter of "boys will be boys." That this kind of behavior is in some small part acceptable.
And I know you don't see it that way, but that's the truth. Just because someone didn't die doesn't reduce the severity of what happened here.
Don't make excuses for someone who nearly killed people.
accumulation in the lungs, which can occur several
hours later and result in death
The person or people with lung burns could still die.
However, I do feel the need to add that chlorine exposure isn't something like a stink bomb. The amount it takes to cause actual physical harm is very low- 30 parts per million is enough to cause immediate damage, and 60 is enough to cause death in an adult. Child exposure levels are lower
The first responders on the scene reported that the levels of chlorine in the stairwell were overloading their Cl sensor- indicating immediately harmful levels. These sensors usually read between 0 and 50 ppm.
I have never heard of a prank involving the release of powdered chlorine before. Even if it's some bizarre prank, they should be arrested, tried, and have real, serious consequences, because this was actually, measurably dangerous.
I know t he fumes were high in the stairwell but I'd think that in the hallways where its much more open and there is a lot of air circulation that the ppm would be a lot less.
I still say that terrorism is to strong of a word to be using in this situation. I posted the definition of terrorism above and it does not fit into those categories. It was not used as some political gain or for a group to make a statement or demands.