[Chefelf]

Vengeful mouse sets house ablaze
Sunday, January 8, 2006; Posted: 5:40 p.m. EST (22:40 GMT)

FORT SUMNER, New Mexico (AP) -- A mouse got its revenge against a homeowner who tried to dispose of it in a pile of burning leaves. The blazing creature ran back to the man's house and set it on fire.

Luciano Mares, 81, of Fort Sumner said he caught the mouse inside his house and wanted to get rid of it.

"I had some leaves burning outside, so I threw it in the fire, and the mouse was on fire and ran back at the house," Mares said from a motel room Saturday.

Village Fire Chief Juan Chavez said the burning mouse ran to just beneath a window, and the flames spread up from there and throughout the house.

No was hurt inside, but the home and everything in it was destroyed.

Unseasonably dry and windy conditions have charred more than 53,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes in southeastern New Mexico in recent weeks.

"I've seen numerous house fires," village Fire Department Capt. Jim Lyssy said, "but nothing as unique as this one."

http://www.cnn.com/2...e.ap/index.html

I don't know what's worse, having your house burn down or knowing that everyone is going to be laughing at you about your house burning down for the rest of your life.

[SimeSublime]

But if you're burning leaves, surely you'd have a hose or something on hand in case it gets out of control, and he could have put out the fire on the house before it got out of control? Or perhaps that just comes from living in a pyrophobic area.

[Jane Sherwood]

Funny how you put this up hardly an hour after I sent the same story to Chyld.

That's the mouse of KARMA!

[Deepsycher]

Would have captured the lot and set them free in a far away suited place. I could have made good pets to sell.

Did he get what he deserved? Rats are good at finding their way back in. Could be emotionally attached, he was cruel to the rat, which just happened to take the problems out on the house this time or as an attempt to put it out.

For me it would be worse as well as being laughed at, for burning down my own house.
I am not sure if he had a pond but what would you do if you are on fire and there was nothing to put it out?

Deciding where to go in panic, "Well I am going inside to see what is in store for me and curl up for the last time."

Also anothing thing that is worse is having your house possessed. Knowing you have a house, but cannot use it.

I am a bit unsure what they mean by beneath, either got in the house beneath a window or stopped at the edge.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 09 January 2006 - 01:39 PM

[Deepsycher]

For second thoughts it might not be getting revenge, just wanted to die at home.
It is not good to kill rats in that way, now this shows an example on what can happen. At least a rat trap kills instantly.

"I know he was just burning leaves, but that leaf just happened to think."

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 09 January 2006 - 02:17 PM

[Despondent]

Wonder if the insurer will give him a hard time, as in "you're not covered for arsonists who happen to be Mice".

[Deepsycher]

Yes demeaning, they are good at that.
If that is the case, known how it was caused, what more do they want. Will they fund if the causes are unknown? I notice that some insurance companies refuses to insure "Natural disasters" which defeats a lot of coverage.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 09 January 2006 - 03:09 PM

[SimeSublime]

Hence the whole 'act of god' clause that made the premise of "The Man that Sued God".

[Deepsycher]

Never seen the Man that sued God. How can a scientific cause be the "act of god"? Sound like the blame needs to be passed on. So if the person is unknown "lets use a mythical character" that cannot be there to be sued. To me that is another excuse to take advantage.

The rat appeared to be vengeful but this was the, "act of burning alive".

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 10 January 2006 - 06:58 AM

[Mirithorn]

At least half of one of my history classes was spent wondering what would happen if Achilles were here today, and if insurance companies would cover damage from a lance thrown through a windshield. But it's still arson, right?

[Deepsycher]

The insurance companies will try to find something to blame. I cannot see that happening but ridiculously, my guess is to bring out a seperate compulsory coverage for Achilles and weapons as a permit to use the roads and pavements responsibly. Good thing is, anything that mysteriously catches fire, falls and breaks through a window can now be put on the Achilles coverage. Who knows, they maybe required to carry fire extinguishers to put out any fires they cause.


It is about "Taking advantage out of every opportunity"

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 10 January 2006 - 08:32 PM

[Laughlyn]

Strangly enough I once took up this line of questioning with a law student I was dating. According to her there have been several attempts to replace 'act of god' with something like 'unpredicatable force of nature' or 'unforseen natural occurances', however protests by certain religious groups (not just Christians) who threatened to end their policies killed the motion.

Apparently there was also an attempt to change it to 'act of a higher power'.

[Deepsycher]

Strangly enough I once took up this line of questioning with a law student I was dating. According to her there have been several attempts to replace 'act of god' with something like 'unpredicatable force of nature' or 'unforseen natural occurances', however protests by certain religious groups (not just Christians) who threatened to end their policies killed the motion.

Apparently there was also an attempt to change it to 'act of a higher power'.

How can they just assume that every natural occurance is an "act of god" if it can scientifically be proven wrong. Unless at the same time of proving that particular events are associated and followed by what they are saying, then it can be an "act of god".

I think it would be helpful to include "unpredictable forces of nature" for most incidents and an "act of god" only when proven.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 11 January 2006 - 06:11 PM

[Laughlyn]

Round the houses way of looking at it; Although we can scientifically explain why things can happen, we can't make them happen (unless you believe all that conspiracy bullshit about the US government having a weather machine\drilling into fault lines), therefore they remain outside the control of human beings. We also need to remember that 'an act of god' does not nessarcaly refer to God, as in the Christian sense, it refers to an act of a god.

Which is why the man who sued god scenario would get chucked out of court on a technicality.

Now if you're a pagan, or a druid, or a wiccan,I can't remember which one, then nature (Gaia) is sort of a higher power, or a kind of god if you want to get picky, so realistically it's a fair statement, that doesn't blame any diety in particular.

It's just that the Christians weren't very original when it came to thinking up names. (or was the name of God something that blew your head off?).

Random thought; the use of God in English language legal terms is odd, since the word is both a person and a title. This is not surprising given the Churchs dominance over the British isles over the years, but does act of god appear in the legal texts of other languages, ones that developed a legal system without Christianity?

This post has been edited by Laughlyn: 11 January 2006 - 07:51 PM

[Deepsycher]

Round the houses way of looking at it; Although we can scientifically explain why things can happen, we can't make them happen (unless you believe all that conspiracy bullshit about the US government having a weather machine\drilling into fault lines), therefore they remain outside the control of human beings. We also need to remember that 'an act of god' does not nessarcaly refer to God, as in the Christian sense, it refers to an act of a god.

Which is why the man who sued god scenario would get chucked out of court on a technicality.

Now if you're a pagan, or a druid, or a wiccan,I can't remember which one, then nature (Gaia) is sort of a higher power, or a kind of god if you want to get picky, so realistically it's a fair statement, that doesn't blame any diety in particular.

It's just that the Christians weren't very original when it came to thinking up names. (or was the name of God something that blew your head off?).

Random thought; the use of God in English language legal terms is odd, since the word is both a person and a title. This is not surprising given the Churchs dominance over the British isles over the years, but does act of god appear in the legal texts of other languages, ones that developed a legal system without Christianity?

Oh classing and comparing an action to god as for no possible control. When I think of god I do not tie to one religion though.

Yes, I was thinking of a way to define the differences but in that case I do not know where a barrier will fall between the two. Other than natural causes if they know exactly, why and does not relate to information from the bible. I think of it as strange to compare an action in that way to just one mythical person. How would it be known for a small cause to be "an act of god" if what happened appeared to be related to something else?

For the random thought, one possible explanation for that to work is for all religions to be a part of one force. So other religions would be a way of addressing the same force in disguise. Hoping to find facts to back that up one day.

Did not know anything about conspiracies relating to weather modifications and faultlines other than pollution. Perhaps building national underground motorways can worsen the problem if that is possible.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 11 January 2006 - 09:30 PM