Not sure where I said "don't shelter in place". Not sure where I said "don't listen to people more experienced".
All I said is that nobody is going to starve or die of dehydration because they ran out of food/water. I stand behind that.
I'll delete my counterpoint word. My comment focuses on safety measures.
"If you are in BRC, conserve food and water, shelter in a warm space,” warned festival organizers according to the Reno Gazette Journal. The news site reported that 73,000 people (a larger population than the city of Santa Cruz) are currently at the festival."
Which sounds like a reasonable reminder to not dump your water jugs and toss your remaining food in trash bags when you're packing up your camp because you may be there a few days longer than expected.
Just because the article is ridiculous does not mean I disagree with every single thing in there. I just think it's ridiculous, particularly in tone.
And also, I stand behind saying there's plenty of food and water. So, by all means "conserve food and water" if you want to, but saying that people "need" to is overstating the reality.
I believe the article is factually correct-ish, but is sensationalized and is spreading FUD and causing unnecessary potential panic.
That's why. I'm downplaying because it needs downplaying.
This wording is clear to me.
If this was in your original comment, I wouldn’t assume that you’re recommending to disregard safety measures.
Otherwise “ridiculous” or “:rolleyes:” are very ambiguous to me.
From what I gathered, you're both saying that the correct situation is to stay in place because there are enough supplies? The key is to reinforce that idea and downplay the risk as long as everyone listens. If the roads are muddy and miserable remember that the more experienced participants prepared for this. Staying with them, sheltering in place is your best bet. If you try to leave and not follow safety protocols and the experienced participants you're likely to get yourself into trouble.
While you two are arguing it seems to be on the angle of approach and not the outcome. At least that's what it seems like to me who honestly has no idea what's going on and only barely read the article.