You can babble all you want, but I direct you back to what started all this, and that was Cain dragging his hateful politics into a thread that was about a sad disaster.
You cannot deny that, it's right here in the thread, post number 3. I reported it, but as usual, there's not a mod available to take the trash out.
It's always how this stuff starts, with either you or Cain or pubby posting your hate.
My expressing distaste at Cain hijacking a good thread over his ugly politics is not hate, it's compassion. Unfortunately, you don't know the difference.
I'm tired of your nastiness, so I'm out. Continue to destroy what little is left of this forum if you wish.
You are the one who is babbling GD.
My reading is that if you just choose NOT TO CALL PEOPLE OUT for the most insignificant absurdities, the conversations that you insist on pointing out as nasty, would be otherwise ignored, given little substance or otherwise be handled appropriately.
In other words if you were capable of being nice, you wouldn't come across like a whiny little B.
In this topic, I recognize Trump's suggestion as a 'thought' ... that was probably widespread. Most people just reject these kinds of ideas because they're not involved in the decisionmaking and the suggestion will either happen or not. Why Trump is so insecure that he is jealous of the press that a Burning Notre Dame Cathedral is getting is the real question. I mean why send out a tweet to 60 million Americans if what you say in this instance is totally irrelevant - except in regard your obvious emotional vulnerability of not being at the center of attention.
For instance, when viewing the fire at its beginning when there was no water being pumped on the central area of the fire, which seemed kind of small, I had the fleeting thought that an aerial drop of fire suppressant would be a good idea. I thought a bit more and realized the task of putting water on that structure from the air would be hit or miss at best and dropped it. I didn't even get to the point of estimating the damage before rejecting the idea.
Still, in replying to this I could see the thinking going like this:
Do the math and convert that water into pounds and then you can visualize that mass as two fully loaded max-sized semi tractor-trailer rigs crashing into the roof of a 860 year old stone structure at 140 miles per hour. Reminds me of the insurance company ad where the pickup ends up on the roof.
Speaking of roof, the way Notre Dame's roof is engineered, with timber rafters covered by a metal roof with a false ceiling blocking access from below, the fires location and intensity was such that the professional firefighters would sacrifice the roof to save the iconic towers and, if possible, the stone walls. The obvious way to do that would be to keep the parts you want to save not only not on fire, but as cool as possible. This is what they did and in so doing, saved key architectural aspects of this historic cathedral.
I think the understanding of fire fighting I've gotten from reporting is that when a fire gets out of control, it is very hard to contain even with the best men and equipment ... and it can happen most everywhere EXCEPT where you have sprinklers. In the case of Notre Dame, they didn't have sprinkler fire suppression 860 years ago. I suspect when they rebuild the roof of the sanctuary it will either be 100 percent steel or they'll have sprinklers.
Beyond that, fire happens ... It is always sad and tragic. Being a church is no defense from fire; First Baptist in Dallas is an example of that.