Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
They're saying it's the worst since then, which is a fact. What they're trying to get across is that Griffith Park hasn't seen a fire this bad in 45 years, which is a pretty big deal.
|
By referencing the devastating Bel Air Fire (of which Griffith Park was only a very minor and mostly irrelevant part of), he is attempting to draw a parallel to that fire. Other than the fact there are flames in Griffith Park, this is absolutely no comparison. No one has lost their home and and all of their possessions because of this fire. The analogy is faulty. It is like saying that DCA is the greatest amusement park in Anaheim since Disneyland. Sure; it is factually true, but a very misleading statement (I am operating on the premise that DCA basically sucks).
I saw the statement as someone trying to garner votes by taking advantage of this fire. And I also believe that the impact of this fire is being blown WAY out of proportion. No lives have been lost, no one has been in true danger (besides the people fighting it - firefighting is a dangerous profession), and no homes have been lost.
Griffith Park has experienced many brush fires in the past 45 years (as recently as March 2007 - less than two months ago). While this fire was started by man, brush fires are a normal and
necessary part of nature. It helps promote growth by clearing out dead materials.
The gangs that infest the park and the people who litter the park are a far greater danger to the park and to the city than this fire.