You can't make this stuff up, or Truth is Stranger than Fiction

[kallend 1,620]

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/25/us/noahs-ark-replica-park-sues-for-rain-damage/index.html

[Coreece 189]

Wow, a landslide washes out a road, and an insurance company refuses to pay on a claim!

If you can't make up something like that, you might lack imagination.

[normiss 620]

Flood insurance?

Didn't think so.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/25/us/noahs-ark-replica-park-sues-for-rain-damage/index.html

Hi John,

Or the attached,

Jerry Baumchen

 

[turtlespeed 212]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/25/us/noahs-ark-replica-park-sues-for-rain-damage/index.html

 

Silly me - but it seems that the road was what was destroyed an/or damaged - not the ark replica.

It isn't surprising, though, that you would gloss over that since it doesn't meet your designs on sensationalism.

Kinda like an article about kids dying from sleeping in cages, by posting an article about a kid that died in a hospital from his parents dragging him across a couple of countries.

 

Seriously.

What was your end game posting that article?

This isn't bonfire.

There is a thread for that kind of thing there.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Silly me - but it seems that the road was what was destroyed an/or damaged - not the ark replica.

Wow, you can read. Would you like a cookie?

 

What's your point?

[AlanS 1]

10 hours ago, jakee said:

Wow, you can read. Would you like a cookie?

 

What's your point?

What's your point?

How about reading the post

Read this before posting or reading here!

See the quote.

1. No personal attacks. 

... 

Personal attacks are any variation on the theme of "you're an idiot." For a discussion of what constitutes a personal attack, see here. 

 

[jakee 1,254]

4 minutes ago, AlanS said:

What's your point?

How about reading the post

Read this before posting or reading here!

See the quote.

1. No personal attacks. 

... 

Personal attacks are any variation on the theme of "you're an idiot." For a discussion of what constitutes a personal attack, see here. 

 

Why are you posting that?

 

What's your point?

[turtlespeed 212]

17 hours ago, jakee said:

Wow, you can read. Would you like a cookie?

 

What's your point?

Really?

What part of this headline references the road and doesn't allude to the Ark being damaged?

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

Why are you deliberately not understanding the points here in this thread?

[kallend 1,620]

18 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Really?

What part of this headline references the road and doesn't allude to the Ark being damaged?

Owners of a Noah's Ark replica file a lawsuit over rain damage.

Why are you deliberately not understanding the points here in this thread?

Q.  Have the owners of the Ark replica filed a lawsuit?

A. Yes

Q. Was the damage in question caused by rain/flood?

A. Yes.

 

So why are you whining?

Edited May 26, 2019 by kallend

[kallend 1,620]

On 5/25/2019 at 9:36 AM, Coreece said:

Wow, a landslide washes out a road, and an insurance company refuses to pay on a claim!

If you can't make up something like that, you might lack imagination.

WHOOOOOSH!

[Coreece 189]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Have the owners of the Ark replica filed a lawsuit?

Yes, a lawsuit for damages that had nothing to do with the ark.   So what, any time they sue for water damage to anything they own (cars, houses, driveways) it will be unthinkable, strange and ironic to you?

Either you didn't read the story you posted or you were deliberately lying by implication and are now once again weaseling around when called out on it.

 

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Was the damage in question caused by rain/flood?

Yes, the damage was done to a road that was destroyed, while the ark survived the flood.  In the the original story, the entire world was destroyed while the ark survived the flood.

So keeping inline with Jakee's theme, wtf is your point?

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Why are you deliberately not understanding the points here in this thread?

Which bit of the headline says the Ark was damaged? Which bit of the article isn't completely clear that the Ark wasn't damaged?

 

Why are you stirring shit and being an ass over things that weren't said?

[jakee 1,254]

31 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Yes, a lawsuit for damages that had nothing to do with the ark.   So what, any time they sue for water damage to anything they own (cars, houses, driveways) it will be unthinkable, strange and ironic to you?

Either you didn't read the story you posted or you were deliberately lying by implication ...

Funny that you accuse Kallend of lying by implication, while you are lying by explicitly lying. It was an access road to the Ark, part of the Ark attraction, that was damaged. That's something to do with the Ark.

 

Oh, and by the way from another article; 

"Engineers it hired recommended it replace the barrier with a retaining wall with drilled concrete shafts to prevent further damage, and the theme park also repaved and repaired portions of the road, the grading and added some drainage improvements. The total cost was about $1m, the lawsuit says. But the insurance companies denied claims for the improvements, saying that the policy had an exclusion for correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship."

 

So, the owners of a Noah's Ark theme park failed to adequately prepare for heavy rain. Yes, Coreece, I really do believe that is the absolute, on the nose, couldn't be more perfect if you tried, dictionary definition of ironic.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

 

So, the owners of a Noah's Ark theme park failed to adequately prepare for heavy rain. Yes, Coreece, I really do believe that is the absolute, on the nose, couldn't be more perfect if you tried, dictionary definition of ironic.

Then it is pretty obvious that your beliefs are wrong.

[jakee 1,254]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Then it is pretty obvious that your beliefs are wrong.

Pretty obvious you either have no idea what irony means, or you're just letting your personal grudges blind you to reason.

 

But hey, maybe you support these multi-millionaire conservative christians who built a sub-standard cheap-ass road and now want their insurance company to pay for it to be upgraded to spec. Personal responsibility, right-wing USA style!

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

the insurance companies denied claims for the improvements, saying that the policy had an exclusion for correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship."

 

So, the owners of a Noah's Ark theme park failed to adequately prepare for heavy rain.

Oh, the insurance company said so.  Well then, it's settled!

Again, the irony would be if the ark was damaged/destroyed, not the surrounding land that in the original story was to be completely flooded and destroyed regardless of how adequately you prepared.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Oh, the insurance company said so.  Well then, it's settled!

Again, the irony would be if the ark was damaged/destroyed, not the surrounding land that in the original story was to be completely flooded and destroyed regardless of how adequately you prepared.

 

Irony would be if the ark was swept away.  It wasn't.

Irony would be if the ark its self was damaged - it wasn't.

Irony would be if the insurance company claimed it wasn't responsible for an act of God. - it didn't.

The manner in which this headline reads is misleading at best.

The whole "You cant make this shit up" theme belongs in bonfire.

Wait a MINUTE - there is already a thread there for JUST that.  Who'd have thunk it?

 

 

[jakee 1,254]

18 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Oh, the insurance company said so.  Well then, it's settled!

No, the Ark theme park says so. It's their engineers who said they needed a proper retaining wall, and their engineers who said they needed better drainage. The insurance company is simply pointing out that the policy doesn't cover upgrades from it building it properly in the first place.

 

Quote

Again, the irony would be if the ark was damaged/destroyed, not the surrounding land that in the original story was to be completely flooded and destroyed regardless of how adequately you prepared.

Right, because once you've built a replica Ark you don't care if anything else you own gets flooded. Oh wait, sorry, apparently they do. They really, really do.

[jakee 1,254]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Irony would be if the insurance company claimed it wasn't responsible for an act of God.

That would not be ironic. Comedy, but not irony.

But the owners of a theme park celebrating the world's most famous preparations for the worlds most famous flood not bothering to prepare for a flood? Yes, that's irony.

 

Quote

The manner in which this headline reads is misleading at best.

No it's not. At best, it's 100% accurate. At its very worst it's mildly ambiguous.

 

Quote

The whole "You cant make this shit up" theme belongs in bonfire.

But on the other hand "This is the place to discuss politics, guns, religion ". Duh.

[Coreece 189]

46 minutes ago, jakee said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Oh, the insurance company said so.  Well then, it's settled!

No, the Ark theme park says so. It's their engineers who said they needed a proper retaining wall, and their engineers who said they needed better drainage. The insurance company is simply pointing out that the policy doesn't cover upgrades from it building it properly in the first place.

Given the quoted text you posted earlier, I'm under the impression that these were engineers hired to repair the road and not necessarily those that designed the park.   If there was nothing to suggest that this was a reasonably foreseeable possibility in the first place, then the park could've very well been built properly at that time. 

I could also see how the insurance co. can be partially liable for the loss, but not necessarily the upgrades.

Also, were all the engineers jewish/christian and familiar with the cubitical system of measures?  If not, then there are no guarantees.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Coreece

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

The manner in which this headline reads is misleading at best.

Plus the OP thread title doesn't really fit.

Also, bold obnoxious fonts like that just irritate the piss out of me.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Coreece

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Given the quoted text you posted earlier, I'm under the impression that these were engineers hired to repair the road and not necessarily those that designed the park.   If there was nothing to suggest that this was a reasonably foreseeable possibility in the first place, then the park could've very well been built properly at that time. 

The fact that they suggested it needed to be rebuilt to a significantly higher standard suggests to me that the original standard wasn't good enough. Unless the original engineers were unfamiliar with the concept of rain? Again, in context, that would definitely fall under the heading of irony.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Also, bold obnoxious fonts like that just irritate the piss out of me.

You can take that up with the designers of this new dogshit forum software. I'd consider myself moderately internet savvy, but if there's an obvious way to edit font size or formatting here then I can't see where the heck it is.

[billvon 2,380]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Irony would be if the ark was swept away.  It wasn't.

Why would that be ironic?  Isn't that, like, what's _supposed_ to happen to it?