Bomb Blast in Nashville Christmas Day

[Gary Childress]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

[henry quirk]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

I wouldn't trust a damn thing bein' said on any of this, by anyone, includin' *me, if I were you









*'course, I'm not sayin' anything about it

[Gary Childress]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

I wouldn't trust a damn thing bein' said on any of this, by anyone, includin' *me, if I were you









*'course, I'm not sayin' anything about it

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case. Fact and opinion can be separated in a story. If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

[Age]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

I thought the darwin awards went to those who killed themselves doing stupid things,
accidentally.

Did that one forget to get out of the vehicle?

[Sculptor]

Maybe he was already dead, and his killer set the bomb?

[Walker]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

I wouldn't trust a damn thing bein' said on any of this, by anyone, includin' *me, if I were you









*'course, I'm not sayin' anything about it

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case. Fact and opinion can be separated in a story. If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

With so little information released by the authorities, or dug up by a real reporter, the incident is ripe for playing What If?

What if … It’s a dry run of some sort. A network of AT&T communications was knocked out. Travel, finance, transactions, and phone gossip were interrupted. How random was the location?

[Gary Childress]

I wouldn't trust a damn thing bein' said on any of this, by anyone, includin' *me, if I were you









*'course, I'm not sayin' anything about it

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case. Fact and opinion can be separated in a story. If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

With so little information released by the authorities, or dug up by a real reporter, the incident is ripe for playing What If?

What if … It’s a dry run of some sort. A network of AT&T communications was knocked out. Travel, finance, transactions, and phone gossip were interrupted. How random was the location?

The last I saw, no motive has been ascertained. I've seen some speculate that the choice of location was possibly not random due to the devastating effect it had on communications. But officials seem to be hesitant to speculate at this point and what articles I have read have pretty much adhered to what officials were stating without speculation, which seems like good judgment to me. No need to stir things up on rumor or conjecture I suppose.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe he was already dead, and his killer set the bomb?

Possible, I suppose. But apparently, someone who talked to the man just before that day heard him say that everyone would know his name soon or something along those lines. So it kind of sounds like premeditated suicide to me at first glance.

It's kind of scary that blowing up a trailer outside one building would knock out the communications of almost the entire state. Shows how woefully vulnerable and inadequate our infrastructure is.

[henry quirk]

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case.

why?


Fact and opinion can be separated in a story.

but, nowadays, often isn't


If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

where is it written you're entitled to such a thing? becuz talkin' heads on tv say these are the facts that makes it so? cuz folks write things for the newspaper, what the write is true, or, unbiased? cuz journalists crow about ethics, they have 'em? cuz cops have protect and serve plastered on the side of their cruisers, they do?

[Gary Childress]

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case.

why?


Fact and opinion can be separated in a story.

but, nowadays, often isn't


If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

where is it written you're entitled to such a thing? becuz talkin' heads on tv say these are the facts that makes it so? cuz folks write things for the newspaper, what the write is true, or, unbiased? cuz journalists crow about ethics, they have 'em? cuz cops have protect and serve plastered on the side of their cruisers, they do?

If someone says a bomb went off in Tennessee and it is corroborated by pretty much every news source, then I trust it. If the writer adds that it's probably ISIS that did it, when no one has yet confirmed such, then I know they are interjecting opinion or speculation.

[Walker]

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case. Fact and opinion can be separated in a story. If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

With so little information released by the authorities, or dug up by a real reporter, the incident is ripe for playing What If?

What if … It’s a dry run of some sort. A network of AT&T communications was knocked out. Travel, finance, transactions, and phone gossip were interrupted. How random was the location?

The last I saw, no motive has been ascertained. I've seen some speculate that the choice of location was possibly not random due to the devastating effect it had on communications. But officials seem to be hesitant to speculate at this point and what articles I have read have pretty much adhered to what officials were stating without speculation, which seems like good judgment to me. No need to stir things up on rumor or conjecture I suppose.

In a month you won't even remember it.

[henry quirk]

I assume the police aren't lying about the general facts of the case.

why?


Fact and opinion can be separated in a story.

but, nowadays, often isn't


If we don't trust at least the basic facts put out by the media, then where would any of us get information about anything?

where is it written you're entitled to such a thing? becuz talkin' heads on tv say these are the facts that makes it so? cuz folks write things for the newspaper, what the write is true, or, unbiased? cuz journalists crow about ethics, they have 'em? cuz cops have protect and serve plastered on the side of their cruisers, they do?

If someone says a bomb went off in Tennessee and it is corroborated by pretty much every news source, then I trust it. If the writer adds that it's probably ISIS that did it, when no one has yet confirmed such, then I know they are interjecting opinion or speculation.

okay

[Gary Childress]

With so little information released by the authorities, or dug up by a real reporter, the incident is ripe for playing What If?

What if … It’s a dry run of some sort. A network of AT&T communications was knocked out. Travel, finance, transactions, and phone gossip were interrupted. How random was the location?

The last I saw, no motive has been ascertained. I've seen some speculate that the choice of location was possibly not random due to the devastating effect it had on communications. But officials seem to be hesitant to speculate at this point and what articles I have read have pretty much adhered to what officials were stating without speculation, which seems like good judgment to me. No need to stir things up on rumor or conjecture I suppose.

In a month you won't even remember it.

Probably not. Although, some of those more intimately affected might.

[Gary Childress]

They've apparently identified the person most likely responsible. Some former IT guy. Blew himself up in the name of what, God only knows. No motive discernable yet. A real Darwin award winner, no doubt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/an ... d=msedgdhp

I thought the darwin awards went to those who killed themselves doing stupid things,
accidentally.

Did that one forget to get out of the vehicle?

I'm not 100% sure. As far as I know, it generally refers to people who just take themselves out of the gene pool doing really stupid stuff.

The Darwin Awards are a tongue-in-cheek honor originating in Usenet newsgroup discussions around 1985. They recognize individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool from dying or becoming sterilized via their own actions.

The project became more formalized with the creation of a website in 1993, followed by a series of books starting in 2000 by Wendy Northcutt. The criterion for the awards states: "In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."[1]

Accidental self-sterilisation also qualifies; however, the site notes: "Of necessity, the award is usually bestowed posthumously." The candidate is disqualified, though, if "innocent bystanders" are killed in the process, as they might have contributed positively to the gene pool. The logical problem presented by award winners who may have already reproduced is not addressed in the selection process due to the difficulty of ascertaining whether or not a person has children; the Darwin Award rules state that the presence of offspring does not disqualify a nominee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards

[Walker]

Probably not. Although, some of those more intimately affected might.

You will forget them even sooner because you don't know them.