"The Irvings"? No, not true: no one named Irving was in any way involved.
"Cause"? Also not true: the story makes it clear that the driver took evasive action to avoid a head-on collision with two pick-ups headed right at it, one of them coming at him in his lane.
"Big disaster"?: Leal, fully contained and to be cleaned up fully.
Gee, no one named Irving huh? Seems to me it says 'Irving' right on the side of the truck. As you will notice, the truck was made of aluminum which meant it could easily have snapped in two. Irving's aren't going to invest in harder body carriers when they know they don't have to clean up the mess, can easily replace the driver, and write off the cost of the truck.
Notice also that there were no witnesses mentioned, so we have only the drivers word to go by. They say two trucks were approaching, but they don't say whether the drivers stopped, who they were, or what their statements were. That's where the real journalism would be handy. Of course Irvings own most of Maine so they know not to give Irvings too hard a time either.
For all his trouble that driver may well be unemployed now thanks to this, as its common policy to fire drivers if they are so much as ten minutes late checking in.
So the story is not the accident itself, the aluminum truck body is what almost hit a power line and the explosion would be huge, so the headline is accurate-so do your trolling elsewhere.
While the fact is that it was indeed an Irving tanker that was involved in the accident the truth is aluminum tanker construction is the standard used by all oil/gas companies. So while its not unsual or unexpected to hear Irving bashing in here at least don't pretend that its some unusual thing to be using an aluminum tank. If anonymous 9:06 had bothered to finish reading the article before their long winded rant they "might" have noticed that the article states "Trafton asked members of the public who could identify the two pickups the Irving driver swerved to avoid to call him at 338-2420." So it is obvious that the two pick-up drivers did not stop to give their names or leave a statement. Also to suggest that the driver might be "less than truthful" as there were no reported witnesses show that anonymous 9:06 knows as little about real journalism as he probably does the workings of the Irving company.
What's wrong with suggesting it? Why would anybody in such a case assume that the driver isn't lying. With no witnesses the reality is that nobody knows but the driver. What that has to do with 'journalism' is anybody's guess. If you only have one person's word on what happened, and they are the ones responsible then obviously any possibility should be considered.
And nobody said that Irving was any different than any other trucking company, that would be stupid. However there are plenty of steel bodied trucks and just because other oil companies have unsafe vehicles certainly is no reason to not mention the fact here.
The title is inflammatory to be sure, but no more than the Irving rags, so whats good for goose is fine for Charles. Get used to the Irving bashing, they have half a dozen papers and many radio stations to sing their praises, so if that's the angle people like, they know where to go...
So are you saying in the same situation that you would lie anonymous 11:56? Is that why you came to that conclusion? Its interesting to see one draw on their own moral turpitude in situations like this, it says so much about a person. As for bashing Irving's you can do what you please anonymous it really matters little to me. I get a bigger chuckle from the minds of people like you:)
9 comments:
I hope they make them pay for the cleanup. I wonder what that would look like if that were a ship and in the bay of fundy?
Bastards.
Well, let's see:
"The Irvings"? No, not true: no one named Irving was in any way involved.
"Cause"? Also not true: the story makes it clear that the driver took evasive action to avoid a head-on collision with two pick-ups headed right at it, one of them coming at him in his lane.
"Big disaster"?: Leal, fully contained and to be cleaned up fully.
Journalism, anyone? Pftt.
Power lines and fuel together could have been a huge disaster.
Gee, no one named Irving huh? Seems to me it says 'Irving' right on the side of the truck. As you will notice, the truck was made of aluminum which meant it could easily have snapped in two. Irving's aren't going to invest in harder body carriers when they know they don't have to clean up the mess, can easily replace the driver, and write off the cost of the truck.
Notice also that there were no witnesses mentioned, so we have only the drivers word to go by. They say two trucks were approaching, but they don't say whether the drivers stopped, who they were, or what their statements were. That's where the real journalism would be handy. Of course Irvings own most of Maine so they know not to give Irvings too hard a time either.
For all his trouble that driver may well be unemployed now thanks to this, as its common policy to fire drivers if they are so much as ten minutes late checking in.
So the story is not the accident itself, the aluminum truck body is what almost hit a power line and the explosion would be huge, so the headline is accurate-so do your trolling elsewhere.
While the fact is that it was indeed an Irving tanker that was involved in the accident the truth is aluminum tanker construction is the standard used by all oil/gas companies. So while its not unsual or unexpected to hear Irving bashing in here at least don't pretend that its some unusual thing to be using an aluminum tank.
If anonymous 9:06 had bothered to finish reading the article before their long winded rant they "might" have noticed that the article states "Trafton asked members of the public who could identify the two pickups the Irving driver swerved to avoid to call him at 338-2420." So it is obvious that the two pick-up drivers did not stop to give their names or leave a statement. Also to suggest that the driver might be "less than truthful" as there were no reported witnesses show that anonymous 9:06 knows as little about real journalism as he probably does the workings of the Irving company.
1400 US gallons = 5600 litres!
In spite of the portrayed successful cleanup I would advise anyone living locally to keep a sharp eye on their wells if any are nearby.
What's wrong with suggesting it? Why would anybody in such a case assume that the driver isn't lying. With no witnesses the reality is that nobody knows but the driver. What that has to do with 'journalism' is anybody's guess. If you only have one person's word on what happened, and they are the ones responsible then obviously any possibility should be considered.
And nobody said that Irving was any different than any other trucking company, that would be stupid. However there are plenty of steel bodied trucks and just because other oil companies have unsafe vehicles certainly is no reason to not mention the fact here.
The title is inflammatory to be sure, but no more than the Irving rags, so whats good for goose is fine for Charles. Get used to the Irving bashing, they have half a dozen papers and many radio stations to sing their praises, so if that's the angle people like, they know where to go...
So are you saying in the same situation that you would lie anonymous 11:56? Is that why you came to that conclusion? Its interesting to see one draw on their own moral turpitude in situations like this, it says so much about a person. As for bashing Irving's you can do what you please anonymous it really matters little to me. I get a bigger chuckle from the minds of people like you:)
Post a Comment