The writer was trying to make the point that Maui was "so wet" that a fire of that scale IN LAHAINA would be impossible

That is not the author's primary point. It's barely even a part of it. You obviously didn't actually read it.

The only point I am making is that the truth of what happened is more mundane...ignorance...incompetence...and perhaps grifters trying to take advantage of the situation.

I disagree with this assessment completely. There is so much evidence of fuckery in these fires, I don't even know where to begin. Just do a search on this site. NOTHING is what it appears to be in the "official" version you seem to espouse. It's literally all bullshit. I'm not saying the fires are faked, but the photographic analysis of the post in the OP does make some very interesting points regarding those photographs. Regardless of the "CGI"ness (or not) of the pictures, the photography is obviously and purposefully staged in some way, and taking a closer look at them strongly supports that assertion.

This has been proven by the evidence I offered.

In your first response you didn't provide a single piece of evidence except your analysis of the water conditions, which is barely an analysis at all. You did a little better in your response here, and I'll give your assessment a "maybe," but it doesn't address the fact that looking at the map shows quite clearly that there is plenty of water on the other side as well, which should be acting as firebreaks.

Your primary "evidence" other than the water is the media talking points which are almost certainly complete fabrications.

Why do you always try to make this message board a battle ground?

We are investigators of a fuckery so huge that everything is suspect. You begin your response with an ad hominem (always an argumentative fallacy), then you address almost nothing of the article itself, nor do you even glimpse at the meat of it. Then you put forth your "analysis" with anecdotal evidence, and no actual statement of anything ("I drove there once"). You do not give any allowance of an easy mistake, which may or may not have been an actual mistake. And then you suggest that was the authors main point, which it was not at all. Very little in the paper relies on that, and it isn't even certain that the water there shouldn't have played a part, since the map evidence suggests there is a ton of water there, even if the rainfall isn't high on that side of the island.

Your follow up post above does give a little better analysis of the water situation than your first post, but you are not offering it as your analysis, you are offering it as "proof" of something. Proof is a decision, based on each persons assessment, that the evidence is sufficient to suggest some truth. It is impossible for anyone to give "proof," all anyone can do is offer their argument and evidence.

Please offer your evidence, offer your argument, offer your critique. It is essential that you do that. That's what we are here for. But if you use ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies, or espouse certain facts as "obvious truth" in a world were facts are manufactured to prevent people from seeing the truth, I will call you out on it.

The writer was trying to make the point that Maui was "so wet" that a fire of that scale IN LAHAINA would be impossible

That is not the author's primary point. It's barely even a part of it. You obviously didn't actually read it.

The only point I am making is that the truth of what happened is more mundane...ignorance...incompetence...and perhaps grifters trying to take advantage of the situation.

I disagree with this assessment completely. There is so much evidence of fuckery in these fires, I don't even know where to begin. Just do a search on this site. NOTHING is what it appears to be in the "official" version you seem to espouse. It's literally all bullshit. I'm not saying the fires are faked, but the photographic analysis of the post in the OP does make some very interesting points regarding those photographs. Regardless of the "CGI"ness (or not) of the pictures, the photography is obviously and purposefully staged in some way, and taking a closer look at them strongly supports that assertion.

This has been proven by the evidence I offered.

In your first response you didn't provide a single piece of evidence except your analysis of the water conditions, which is barely an analysis at all. You did a little better in your response here, and I'll give your assessment a "maybe," but it doesn't address the fact that looking at the map shows quite clearly that there is plenty of water on the other side as well.

Your primary "evidence" other than the water is the media talking points which are almost certainly complete fabrications.

Why do you always try to make this message board a battle ground?

We are investigators of a fuckery so huge that everything is suspect. You begin your response with an ad hominem (always an argumentative fallacy), then you address almost nothing of the article itself, nor do you even glimpse at the meat of it. Then you put forth your "analysis" with anecdotal evidence, and no actual statement of anything ("I drove there once"). You do not give any allowance of an easy mistake, which may or may not have been an actual mistake. And then you suggest that was the authors main point, which it was not at all. Very little in the paper relies on that, and it isn't even certain that the water there shouldn't have played a part, since the map evidence suggests there is a ton of water there, even if the rainfall isn't high on that side of the island.

Your follow up post above does give a little better analysis of the water situation than your first post, but you are not offering it as your analysis, you are offering it as "proof" of something. Proof is a decision, based on each persons assessment, that the evidence is sufficient to suggest some truth. It is impossible for anyone to give "proof," all anyone can do is offer their argument and evidence.

Please offer your evidence, offer your argument, offer your critique. It is essential that you do that. That's what we are here for. But if you use ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies, or espouse certain facts as "obvious truth" in a world were facts are manufactured to prevent people from seeing the truth, I will call you out on it.

The writer was trying to make the point that Maui was "so wet" that a fire of that scale IN LAHAINA would be impossible

That is not the author's primary point. It's barely even a part of it. You obviously didn't actually read it.

The only point I am making is that the truth of what happened is more mundane...ignorance...incompetence...and perhaps grifters trying to take advantage of the situation.

I disagree with this assessment completely. There is so much evidence of fuckery in these fires, I don't even know where to begin. Just do a search on this site. NOTHING is what it appears to be in the "official" version you seem to espouse. It's literally all bullshit. I'm not saying the fires are faked, but the photographic analysis of the post in the OP does make some very interesting points regarding those photographs. Regardless of the "CGI"ness (or not) of the pictures, the photography is obviously and purposefully staged in some way, and taking a closer look at them strongly supports that assertion.

This has been proven by the evidence I offered.

In your first response you didn't provide a single piece of evidence except your analysis of the water conditions, which is barely an analysis at all. You did a little better in your response here, and I'll give your assessment a "maybe," but it doesn't address that fact that looking at the map shows quite clearly that there is plenty of water on the other side as well.

Your primary "evidence" other than the water is the media talking points which are almost certainly complete fabrications.

Why do you always try to make this message board a battle ground?

We are investigators of a fuckery so huge that everything is suspect. You begin your response with an ad hominem (always an argumentative fallacy), then you address almost nothing of the article itself, nor do you even glimpse at the meat of it. Then you put forth your "analysis" with anecdotal evidence, and no actual statement of anything ("I drove there once"). You do not give any allowance of an easy mistake, which may or may not have been an actual mistake. And then you suggest that was the authors main point, which it was not at all. Very little in the paper relies on that, and it isn't even certain that the water there shouldn't have played a part, since the map evidence suggests there is a ton of water there, even if the rainfall isn't high on that side of the island.

Your follow up post above does give a little better analysis of the water situation than your first post, but you are not offering it as your analysis, you are offering it as "proof" of something. Proof is a decision, based on each persons assessment, that the evidence is sufficient to suggest some truth. It is impossible for anyone to give "proof," all anyone can do is offer their argument and evidence.

Please offer your evidence, offer your argument, offer your critique. It is essential that you do that. That's what we are here for. But if you use ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies, or espouse certain facts as "obvious truth" in a world were facts are manufactured to prevent people from seeing the truth, I will call you out on it.