Declan Murphy wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
> >
> >>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>
> >>>Declan Murphy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
> >>>
> >>>No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
> >>>names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
> >>
> >>Thats not true at all Eric.
> >
> > So why do typhoons have numbers, and the same numbers every year, instead of "names"?
>
> Do you actually bother to read a post and think before you reply?

Yep. Typhoons in Japan get numbers, and the same numbers, every year.

> It might make for a welcome change.

Irrelevant to the fact typhoons are given numbers by Japan.

> This sub-thread began with the simple
> premise that for Japan, numbers are easier,

Not Japan only. It was claimed numbers were easier, or even easiest, period.

> and for minor typhoons, they are. For gaijenerous typhoons, they score a name. End of thread
> really.

It was your stepping in that prevented it from being the end.

> Apart from being pedantic, exactly what is your problem?

The fact that names are better for telling them apart.

> For some reason I thought the chugoku area had a larger population.

An island of a few thousand in Hawaii will have a daily paper of considerably more than 24 pages.
Somehow millions of Japanese are satisfied by not knowing what is happening all around them every
day. Such Japanese apathy shouldn't be a surprise, actually.

> >>will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
> >>flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
> >>short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
> >>destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".
> >
> > Which is exactly what we are talking about. The fact typhoons do not get names.
>
> No - that is not what *we* were talking about.

Yes, it is.

> >>See above - you were misinformed.
> >
> > So what number was that typhoon, and is that what people know? And I am not talking about just
> > in the region.
>
> I just told you, it was number 15 that year. Didn't you bother reading
> my post or the link?

Not your link. Maybe I'll go see how many people know about and remember "Typhoon 15". Most don't
seem to know about "Typhoon 10" right now.

> >>It is only remembered because it was big.
> >
> > No, it was remembered by name, because it always had a name.
>
> Whether it is remembered by name or number is not relevant - if it kills
> 5000 people, it will be remembered. Period.

And particular or unique names are better. Even "tropical depressions" may get names, with no
damage done whatsoever. How much more convenient to look that name up.

> >>Do you remember Hurricane
> >>Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
> >>year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
> >>Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
> >>then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
> >>reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
> >>it because it was called Tracy,
> >
> > So what number was it?
>
> It was not a typhoon coming to Japan, so as far as I know it had no
> Japanese number.

Not a "Japanese number". What number was it of the year?

> >>The inability of English speaking foreigners
> >
> > Only foreigners? Do Japanese know about Typhoon One last year?
>
> Did it kill 5000 of them? If not, what is there to know about it?

Anything anybody would care to know, including an easier way than sifting through every hit on
"Typhoon Number One" in Japanese if they aren't sure of the year or location. Why does it need to
kill many people before it is worthy of the "privilege" being named or known about?

> >>to differentiate between
> >>one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
> >>Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.
> >
> > Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that serve other countries well
> > enough?
>
> Because it is not an issue.

You mean, not to you. Other nations use names, even if hurricanes affect them not at all and kill
no one.

> Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese
> meteorologists seem to be getting along with the current system just fine.

So what?

--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far the best in the
world."

- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA