Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Flame of the Week – The palm tree flamer speaks

By johnboy 15 May 2009 23

We’ve all missed quality flaming of late.

So many thanks to The Arsonist for this effort on the subject of the palm tree fires:

    #13 posted by The Arsonist
    (Newbie)
    12:12, 15 May 2009

    Oh my goD. I am so sorry for the grief i have caused all of you.

    NOT IT WAS F***ING SICK TORCHING YOUR 10,000 DOLLAR TREES!!!

Congratulations The Arsonist, you’re the flame of the week. I hope that makes you happy.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Flame of the Week – The palm tree flamer speaks
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
palm-tree 3:13 pm 26 May 09

The Arsonist is a mad dog !!!

good times..

Steady Eddie 3:30 pm 16 May 09

Gee, I thought my anti-woman post about the roo cull would qualify as FOTW. Better try harder next time . . .

astrojax 1:47 pm 16 May 09

no. 3 is never say their name – not even even their IP…

bd84 9:51 pm 15 May 09

hey I could light their house on fire because I think it would be “sick”. Would make it perfectly fine?

TP 3000 9:26 pm 15 May 09

That message couldn’t of been typed by a real arsonist as there are no spelling mistakes. Grammar, word set up is a tad off, but some private school students are like that.

These low life scum of the earth should be locked up & shut off from the rest of the world, except for an occasional beating by fellow inmates.

Danman 2:34 pm 15 May 09

“Cuzz nothin else can set fire to this town”

Never a truer word re Queanbeyan

PreciousLilywhite 2:02 pm 15 May 09

ha ha surly…I meant surly :0

PreciousLilywhite 2:00 pm 15 May 09

Oh the flames trees revive the surely scriber…

Danman 1:44 pm 15 May 09

Cue scenes of “Full House” eh feathergirl ?

Woody Mann-Caruso 1:43 pm 15 May 09

Arsonists are usually compensating for something. What might you be compensating for by lighting up long, straight, erect trees?

Feathergirl 1:41 pm 15 May 09

Who still says *NOT* to signify their statement is sarcastic? I suspect the culprit is a time traveller from the early 90s.

ant 1:38 pm 15 May 09

Someone might even do a poem…

pptvb 1:12 pm 15 May 09

mmm so many tangents,
This could go anywhere.

screaming banshee 1:07 pm 15 May 09

dvaey said :

Same theory that ruins your life for having group-sex, but lets you out on bail for kidnap and assault.

And you dont have to wait for 7 years to be let out on bail

dvaey 12:54 pm 15 May 09

caf said :

I am intrigued by a moral theory whereby arson is acceptable, but saying “F.UCK” in public is not.

Same theory that ruins your life for having group-sex, but lets you out on bail for kidnap and assault.

caf 12:48 pm 15 May 09

The point is moot, because if you read the updates in the linked RiotACT story on the fires, you’ll find that the offenders were identified, arrested and fronted court already.

johnboy 12:48 pm 15 May 09

Anyway my understanding in this case is that the culprits have been apprehended.

We respect the privacy of all our contributors SB.

If the police want that detail badly enough they have legal means with which to request it.

Even when a poster effectively admits to committing a crime?

Of course, there’s no real way of telling whether the loser who wrote this rant was really the tree-torcher, or some blow-in trolling.

screaming banshee 12:41 pm 15 May 09

Fair point JB

caf 12:40 pm 15 May 09

I am intrigued by a moral theory whereby arson is acceptable, but saying “F.UCK” in public is not.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site