"Professional" only has meaning when exemplified through actions, and claiming such a thing in itself does not entitle anyone to any respect. Professionals who deserve bashing should get bashed and heavily as a reminder of their position and it's obligations to hold a higher standard. I
DO agree that we should be civil in our language and discussions though regardless of who we're speaking about or with.
I'm a trained communicator and I've had to learn that what people exactly say isn't always what they exactly mean, and that the two things which matter most in communications is that you don't alter someone else's words, and that it's up to the receiver to decide what the sender meant. If Tim Marshall meant exactly what he said then I must agree with sentiments (
but not the wording) of
@Lake Martin EF4 and I do hope he'll edit his post once he cools down. It would be nice if Tim Marshall further responded to clarify exactly what he meant but I have no involvement there.
If anything, Jarrell should be an argument for a EF-6 rating where nothing is left behind larger than a specific small size (for instance one cubic inch or whatever) which would ensure it isn't mis-applied and is only applied to tornadoes of unconscionable levels of destruction like we saw at Double Creek. I think it's useful and valid to have 5 subdivisions of damage normally and I wouldn't argue with leaving Jarrell as EF-5 on an open-ended scale,
but it shouldn't be the minimum required for an EF-5 rating. I certainly do not want to have more numerous subdivisions of destruction such as the "Torro" scale used in the UK as that's not meaningful or useful, and would only complicate the work of the surveyors without offering any useful scientific or public gains.
Phil
