word302
Well-Known Member
First of all, you have a bunch of quotes with my name on them that aren't mine. What exactly is the point of your post?Guys, go kick the dog or something. @Dkretden .
After routinely praising LOD on this board (go check) and wishing them a speedy recovery from this incident I shared a story with "upteen" disclaimers, including the story coming from one media source, that fires are regularly inspected, and nothing negative should be drawn from this story.
Dkretden, some facts.
The story doesn't simply say a fire happened. It said an inspector was called. Many fires don't require one. Many fires that do are completely unintentional. I said that, along with providing non criminal investigation reasons, like future prevention, why someone in authority might visit a sight.
Assuming this the case I expressly indicated the likelihood this fire was accidental. I implied nothing. I said others should imply nothing. I expressly said LOD earns the benefit of the doubt here. I said inspectors can be called for many reasons, including investigation of whether the very way the fire was fought was best.
No. Just no. Rather, that's the single most important thing but not the only thing. There are often tons of downstream impacts from such things like people not getting goods and services as fast as hoped for, and the very employees you seem to be coming to the protection of, that you think I don't care about, losing jobs, etc.
Fellas: sometimes it gets dark at night. Why not accuse me of clock prejudice too.
For the record, go ask them, LOD sent me a friendly private email just the other day.
Right back at you @word302 : really dude? What do you think I was implying as I expressly said to offer LOD every benefit of the doubt in the world.
Sponsored




