WWTBAM Bored

All I can hear in my head right now is yodeling from "The Price Is Right"...

And then this happened:

Did the owner set the house on fire, like I heard he was going to?

I don't know what his insurance policy says about covering cliff erosion, but I don't see how setting a fire helps.

MarleysGh0st wrote:Did the owner set the house on fire, like I heard he was going to?

I don't know what his insurance policy says about covering cliff erosion, but I don't see how setting a fire helps.

It looks to me like he left the water running in the tub and he left the stove on before leaving on vacation.

- Tim H.

MarleysGh0st wrote:Did the owner set the house on fire, like I heard he was going to?

I don't know what his insurance policy says about covering cliff erosion, but I don't see how setting a fire helps.

Earlier articles said the owner would be held responsible for cleaning up the mess after the house collapsed, so I think the 'burning' was only to minimize what needed to be cleaned up, not to have a fire claim or anything.

BackInTex wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Did the owner set the house on fire, like I heard he was going to?

I don't know what his insurance policy says about covering cliff erosion, but I don't see how setting a fire helps.

Earlier articles said the owner would be held responsible for cleaning up the mess after the house collapsed, so I think the 'burning' was only to minimize what needed to be cleaned up, not to have a fire claim or anything.

Bingo.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:Did the owner set the house on fire, like I heard he was going to?

I don't know what his insurance policy says about covering cliff erosion, but I don't see how setting a fire helps.

Earlier articles said the owner would be held responsible for cleaning up the mess after the house collapsed, so I think the 'burning' was only to minimize what needed to be cleaned up, not to have a fire claim or anything.

Bingo.

Yeah, pretty good logical thought process from a Young Earther, Intelligent Design Creationist, Texas educated fellow. Looks like some of the 'others' didn't fare so well in the evaluation of the situation.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Earlier articles said the owner would be held responsible for cleaning up the mess after the house collapsed, so I think the 'burning' was only to minimize what needed to be cleaned up, not to have a fire claim or anything.

Bingo.

Yeah, pretty good logical thought process from a Young Earther, Intelligent Design Creationist, Texas educated fellow. Looks like some of the 'others' didn't fare so well in the evaluation of the situation.

You can always tell an Aggie but you can't tell him much.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Bingo.

Yeah, pretty good logical thought process from a Young Earther, Intelligent Design Creationist, Texas educated fellow. Looks like some of the 'others' didn't fare so well in the evaluation of the situation.

You can always tell an Aggie but you can't tell him much he already knows.

Fixed that for you.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Yeah, pretty good logical thought process from a Young Earther, Intelligent Design Creationist, Texas educated fellow. Looks like some of the 'others' didn't fare so well in the evaluation of the situation.

You can always tell an Aggie but you can't tell him much he already knows.

Fixed that for you.

You may want to review your punctuation there...

Estonut wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:You can always tell an Aggie but you can't tell him much he already knows.

Fixed that for you.

You may want to review your punctuation there...

Maybe. But you've got to respect anyone who knows what they don't know.