Hmmm. Churches in France do seem to be suffering a terrible run of luck lately.

[Pokster]

Well, I'd say that without the ongoing story of churches being targeted in France your "huge probaility that it is an accident, with a small chance it was arson" would be the sensible conclusion, but when you add in the knowledge that recently this stuff keeps happeneing, surely your view changes a little? I mean "huge probability" versus "small chance"? Really?

Yes, really

[Sir C]

Yes, really

In that case we either have an extremely different view of probablities or you are furiously displaying your woke credentials.

Are you Ian Harvey in disguise?

[Pokster]

In that case we either have an extremely different view of probablities or you are furiously displaying your woke credentials.

Are you Ian Harvey in disguise?

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

[Sir C]

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

Amazing. So when we started having this discussion they hadn't said anything, but now they have, you're using that to justify your argument?

Fúck me. That's mendacious in the extreme.

[Pokster]

Amazing. So when we started having this discussion they hadn't said anything, but now they have, you're using that to justify your argument?

Fúck me. That's mendacious in the extreme.

My default position was an unfortunate accident, that has strengthened after further comments this morning? I'm not quite sure why that is such a strange opening position?

[Burney]

Well since the Paris Fire Authority have already said they don't believe it is Arson, unless you are assuming they are lying to protect some group, then i would suggest it was an accident is a very high probability

Not quite. “There is no indication that this was a deliberate act,” is what's been said. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

[redgunamo]

Good point. I missed that.

Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

[WES]

Not quite. “There is no indication that this was a deliberate act,” is what's been said. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's something that never happens in normal fire investigations: people ruling out arson while the thing's still smoking.

You think that saying there is no indication that this was a deliberate act and ruling out arson are the same thing?

Really?

[Burney]

You think that saying there is no indication that this was a deliberate act and ruling out arson are the same thing?

Really?

No. In fact my whole point is that they aren't the same thing.

[Pokster]

No. In fact my whole point is that they aren't the same thing.

But it appears that your default position is that this is more likely to be arson that not/ Is that correct?