I didn't know people in the south were really that slow

CrAz3D · February 09, 2006, 12:18 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/chuch.gov.ap/index.html

QuoteGovernor: All 9 church fires appear linked

ORLY!?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/church.fires/index.html

QuoteThe spate of church fires in rural Alabama is motivated by hate

ORLY^2!?

Grok · February 09, 2006, 02:22 PM

Are you calling them slow because they came to premature conclusions slower than you did? The first one I can somewhat agree with, after sufficient evidence is gathered. The second one would really require an arrest and investigation into the suspect's motivations. Until it is known who is burning the churches, they cannot know why. So I might agree that a slow person intellectually would jump at an easy obvious motivation for the crimes. I wonder if arson is typically a financially motivated crime, in order to collect insurance money. Could be one person attempting to hide burning down their own church by burning more, making it appear to be a hate crime against churches.

quasi-modo · February 09, 2006, 02:24 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2006, 12:18 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/chuch.gov.ap/index.html
QuoteGovernor: All 9 church fires appear linked
ORLY!?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/church.fires/index.html
QuoteThe spate of church fires in rural Alabama is motivated by hate
ORLY^2!?

But it's not clear weather or not the fires are racial or spiritual discrimination. Politicians always say crap like that, it doesn't make them stupid, they just say retarded things when they have nothing better to say but have to say something. Also I resent you saying that people in the south or alabama are dumb... some of us here are currently living in alabama. Grr.

DarkMinion · February 09, 2006, 02:30 PM

I live in the south and take issue with your stupid ass comment.

Networks · February 09, 2006, 04:04 PM

If you make immediate accusations, you take the risk of being wrong and have it all blow up right in your face. No one wants that, in effect you take your time and make sure you have more evidence.

CrAz3D · February 09, 2006, 05:16 PM

I'm from the south too. I wasn't being serious about the south being retarded/slow, that was sarcasm.

Anyways, I just was surprised that they didn't issue a statement earlier that the 9 fires that have all happened in a matter of days were linked.

Grok · February 10, 2006, 12:21 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2006, 05:16 PM
I'm from the south too. I wasn't being serious about the south being retarded/slow, that was sarcasm.

Anyways, I just was surprised that they didn't issue a statement earlier that the 9 fires that have all happened in a matter of days were linked.

You're not listening to the advice being given here, and its making you look dumb. (this is not a personal attack, but a juxtaposition)

One cannot and should not jump to the conclusion that the 9 fires are "linked". It is evident from reading the articles that they are two sets of fires, 4 and 5, rather than 9 fires of the same type. That alone is reason enough to doubt they are linked, even if they are. However, the fire investigators and police involved, all the way up to the governor, probably have mountains of evidence that we do not know about. They are in a far better position than us to decide when to conclude the fires are linked. Do you not agree?

CrAz3D · February 10, 2006, 12:36 PM

I do agree, but I also think just at 'face value' (or whatever it should be called), 9 fires in the same area seem QUITE suspicious

DarkMinion · February 10, 2006, 12:58 PM

It is hard to ignore the possibility of them being linked. In fact, it's pretty ludicrous to think that they are seperate, unrelated occurances.

CrAz3D · February 10, 2006, 01:12 PM

Quote from: DarkMinion on February 10, 2006, 12:58 PM
It is hard to ignore the possibility of them being linked. In fact, it's pretty ludicrous to think that they are seperate, unrelated occurances.

Exactly. It is quite probable that they are linked, which is why i was surprised that the release came so 'late'.

I would've expected them to speculate that they were connected, but I spose its a good thing they made sure (in accordance with evidence they have now) that the fires were related before hand. I guess it might look bad if they speculated too soon, but any other 'guess' would be quite unusual

Grok · February 10, 2006, 05:27 PM

Linked and unrelated are not opposites. It's quite possible that the first group of fires were done by one person and the following set done in retaliation by another person, copycat style. The types of churches selected and the chronology suggests that as a possibility.

While you or I may have decided for ourselves they are "linked" (whatever that means), we could just as easily be wrong.

While I am NOT saying they are not linked, I am saying that it is not a "dumb southerner" thing for the officials in charge to make sure before making such a public statement. Initially I replied in such a way that was agreeing with a misrepresentation of your claim, in order to show you the actual statement you made lacks significant merit.

CrAz3D · February 10, 2006, 06:03 PM

Quote from: Grok on February 10, 2006, 05:27 PM
Linked and unrelated are not opposites. It's quite possible that the first group of fires were done by one person and the following set done in retaliation by another person, copycat style. The types of churches selected and the chronology suggests that as a possibility.

While you or I may have decided for ourselves they are "linked" (whatever that means), we could just as easily be wrong.

While I am NOT saying they are not linked, I am saying that it is not a "dumb southerner" thing for the officials in charge to make sure before making such a public statement. Initially I replied in such a way that was agreeing with a misrepresentation of your claim, in order to show you the actual statement you made lacks significant merit.

mk.