If your house was on fire would you take an incremental approach to putting it out?

Aug 6, 2021 · 5:47 AM UTC

244
420
70
3,313
Replying to @marwilliamson
Depends on the size of the increments. 😀
Replying to @marwilliamson
I’d save the kitchen first. Everybody always gathers in the kitchen. Besides, boy’s gotta eat. The bathroom would be next b/c everyone poops. If you’re referring to climate change, it is becoming increasingly clear that we were screwed when they took thesolar panels off the WH
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
It’s been on fire for years and they cut the fire department budget, so all we got is Gary the asthmatic and a 2liter of orange soda he’s spitting thru a paper straw while I’m being told to be grateful Gary could even show, and I’ll be charged $78,000
Replying to @marwilliamson
Marianne, would you?
Replying to @marwilliamson
No , and I certainly wouldn’t be waisting anytime tweeting about it either, I figure out what I need to do , what’s the best approach and then go do it , gather some support and do it again until I get results!!!
1
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
What is the difference between a "measured decline" and an "incremental approach"?
Replying to @ReedCoverdale
Indeed. And I would again, given the alternative. I still prefer a measured decline to a straight descent.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
What if it was Pelosi's house?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Yes, by definition you have to. How many hoses can put how much water in one place at a single time? Unless the answer is "infinite" then you're using an incremental approach.
Replying to @marwilliamson
No I would pause the flames until I return from a vacation then incrementally put them out asy house burns.
Replying to @marwilliamson
I wouldn't trust the assholes who set it on fire no matter what their approach was.