[as] Shuts Down Boston

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Ah!  So now you're arguing that the Lite Brites were dangerous?  I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

BTW, why didn't you answer the questions?

Why, you didn't answer mine

[john9001]

Originally posted by Maverick

Riddle me this. Why do most drivers involved in a collision with another motor vehicle state they "didn't see the other one"?

poor SA

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Sixpence
So if some doesn't notice a pipe bomb for three weeks it's not dangerous?

No, it's already been detonated.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Why, you didn't answer mine

Because you didn't answer the 2nd question.   You need a Tom-Tom to debate on the intardnet now?

[Maverick]

My question wasn't answered either!  

[BTW]

Originally posted by Maverick
My question wasn't answered either!  

Neither was mine.

Chairboy asked me a question :
---
BTW, can you give me a good reason why we shouldn't treat every newspaper box as a bomb, then? How about treating every cinderblock or abandoned car as a bomb threat?

By your logic, you can't be too careful.
----

And I answered him

---
Because its not out of place. If you find a newspaper box duct taped under your car, you should be suspicious. If you find an abandoned car in a secure location, you should be suspicious and NOT dismiss it out of hand. Those devices were out of place and therefore suspicious.

My logic is when things are out of place or appear unusual, it should raise suspicion. YOUR logic is whatever you said about being too careful
--


I asked him a question:
---

Is there some sort of memo somewhere that shows you could not hide an explosive device in this manner? Please point me to it. Please show me a list of things we can just dismiss out of hand as being bombs and where this fits on that list. Its a simple request.

--


And he just ignores it. Better than just ignoring it, he accuses others of not answering questions!
I think its apparent his "argument" is bankrupt. But far be it from that to silence the squeaky wheel.

[BTW]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Thank you for proving Godwins Law.  It demonstrates exactly how strong your argument is.

(golf clap)

Actually it doesn't. The point of the picture was that having lite brites on something doesn't guarantee it innocuous. I didn't compare anything to Hitler.
Keep up

[Chairboy]

Another thread here nailed it with the subject line: Common sense has left the building.

Of course there's no memo that says that says bombs can't  be disguised.  But your argument is pretty ridiculous, because you seem to forget that ANYTHING out there could be disguised as a bomb by your logic.  I mentioned a newspaper box, and your response was "Well, I'd be suspicious if a newspaper box was attached to the bottom of a bridge" or out of place in some other way.  Why does it have to be out of place?  The terrorists could put a newspaper box in a perfectly normal place and it'd be a big bad ol' bomb that nobody would notice.

...but you don't react until someone puts a lite-brite on the side of a bridge?

Get real folks.  After the first "device" was identified as harmless, anything past that was overreaction and a shameful reflection on the judgement of the people involved in orchestrating the panic.  The Mayor of boston says he wants to sue Turner to pay for their panic?  Maybe the taxpayers should sue the city government for wasting their money.

[moot]

Chairboy, surely you panicked at any sight of 747s and/or boxcutters since New York

[Maverick]

We can all rest east. Chairboy has spoken. He's going to investigate all the unknown devices in the country cuz he knows if they're safe or not.

If it's got lite brites on it it can't possibly be a bomb.  

If no one sees it or notices it, it's safe.

There won't be any bombs at all as long as one of them is not explosive. They have to all be explosive or not at all.

If any one or company puts out something that looks or could look suspicious it's not their fault if it's misinterpreted.

[Chairboy]

What a maroon.  What a wise guy.

[BTW]

Originally posted by Chairboy

Of course there's no memo that says that says bombs can't  be disguised.  But your argument is pretty ridiculous, because you seem to forget that ANYTHING out there could be disguised as a bomb by your logic.  I mentioned a newspaper box, and your response was "Well, I'd be suspicious if a newspaper box was attached to the bottom of a bridge" or out of place in some other way.  Why does it have to be out of place?  The terrorists could put a newspaper box in a perfectly normal place and it'd be a big bad ol' bomb that nobody would notice.

...but you don't react until someone puts a lite-brite on the side of a bridge?

Get real folks.  After the first "device" was identified as harmless, anything past

Now we're getting somewhere. You say MY argument is "pretty ridiculous", yet when you finally answer my question you have to concede my fist point i.e., there is no book as to what could or could not be a bomb.  Of course thats the case, but you were skipping over that fact when ridiculing people for taking a device with lite brites on it, seriously. The lite brites and cartoon logo mean absolutely nothing in deciding if its a threat. You are exactly right -ANYTHING could be a bomb in disguise.  And obviously police can't check everything, but they can check things that don't look right. You ask "why does it have to be out of place?" Because if it was in place, it would look right. It would not be suspicious and if it was a bomb it would probably work. That's why they remove garbage cans from the rout of a presidential motorcade. Because a bomb could easily be put in a garbage can and it wouldn't look unusual.

The people putting out those devices did not notify police, and they were put in unusual places. They could have hung the devices is store shop windows. I don't think they would have created an uproar. The owners of the shops could easily explain them. But to put them on the supports of overpasses? That's unusual. So unusual, you can't give an example of another publicity stunt so stupid that didn't end in arrests. I would put this on the level of "*******" (edited word was a synonym for donkey) type stunts and many of those have ended in arrests.

But all of this is getting off track. The argument is whether or not the Boston police over reacted. You have yet to give any logic that shows they did.
You logic (which is no logic ) says because some bombs could be disguised completely, the police shouldn't thoroughly examine poorly disguised or suspicious devices. Again, thats just ridiculous.

You logic, your "argument", doesn't work. It makes no sense.

[Maverick]

BTW,

Let the thread die. The only arguement Chairboy hasn't used is "he has a plan" or he "could do it better". It's all beeyotch and no realistic suggestions about how it should have been handled. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't bother dumping on the media who spread the "news" about the devices.

[Mightytboy]

Originally posted by Chairboy
What a maroon.  What a wise guy.

He may be both but he IS correct.

[Chairboy]

If he's "correct", then I guess you're arguing that the other 9 major cities that didn't pee their pants with panic were wrong?