This is priceless - or it would be if it wasn't serious.
First of all, a fireman (allegedly) describes an entirely predictable fire as a "freak accident" but then the family go on to suggest the loss of life was prevented by a Guardian Angel.
If you can read the comments, the most surprising thing seems to be the negative reaction thrown at the only commentator who seems to have a grip on reality. I've added my tuppenth-happney later and will doubtless be ragged if someone notices.
What you have is this:
This is what smoke alarms do.
It took me less than a second to work that out just by looking at the picture and I expect "Andy" in the comments figured out the same.
What irks me (and I think Andy too) is that the local rag has blow this into some sort of amazing survival against the odds human story; and the quote from the fireman is nothing short of nuts. Having been on both sides of these stories, I fully expect the quote is entirely out of context or even made up.
But what pains me is the bizarre belief that this child was being watched over by a supernatural force - a force was powerful enough to prevent the child (and perhaps the family) being overcome by smoke, but strangely unable to stop an entirely preventable accident in the first place. A force that, in fact, waited until the smoke alarm started screeching before it acted.
Or maybe... well, you can see where I'm going here.
I keep a 55 gallon drum of papal pee in the corner of my room just for these kinds of emergencys... After all you never know when Lucifer is gonna be hangin; round your back door, and it is always better to be safe than sorry. Besides without the fire how could you even begin to count your blessings...
Is the world getting more and more stupid, or am I just getting older and wiser? I for sure am not ready for any of these idiots, from the fireman on down.... Gimme a phooqin break!
1. Guardian angels help people survive people freak accidents.
2. These people survived a freak accident.
3. Therefore, guardian angels exist.
Why did I not immediately see that?
Part of me just wants to say "that's what you get for not using compact fluorescent bulbs" because those wouldn't generate the heat to light paper on fire.
But it was a guardian angel huh? Then why do they even have a smoke alarm? Stupidity is everywhere I suppose.
I agree that the mention of a 'guardian angel' by a news agency is ludicrous.
However, I belive the entire article is filled with nothing more than sensationalism, like one commentor said.
"the blaze closed in on the sleeping girl"
"only minor damage"
It wasn't an agency, it's a local reporter - that does not excuse it.
But don't try and comment on the article - you'll get seriously burned by the ignorant majority in my home town.
Oh, god, my head hurts.