In article , Jonathan Kamens says...

Banty writes:
In article , Jonathan Kamens says...

Banty writes:
What is the relevance of your post to the O.P's situation?

You tell me. You're the one that brought it up.


To spell it out, my point is that the fact that neighbors are replacing roofs
does not necessarily mean that the OP's roof is hail-damaged. Because insurance
fraud is extremely common.

That has nothing at all to do with the little piece of carrion you dragged in to
the house and mewled about, which was something about which of of said neighbors
should be conversed with.

On the contrary, what I said had everything to do with the point you
were trying to make. I will try to explain more clearly.

All the evidence you offered to support your claim that insurance fraud
is extremely common is that you've seen a lot of it. That could just
as easily prove that you associate with the wrong kind of people.

It's entirely possible that some of the people on OP's street know
there's nothing wrong with their rooves and are taking advantage of the
insurance companies to get free roof work. It's also entirely possible
that all of them sincerely believe that their rooves were damaged by
the hail because they're being misled by contractors who are eager to
take advantage of clueless homeowners and their insurance companies.
It's also entirely possible that the rooves really were damaged by the
hail and need to be replaced.

All of these possibilities exist.

True. That goes to my point.

It's simply specious for you to
assert that the people getting their rooves replaced are engaging in
insurance fraud, when all you have to offer as proof of this assertion
is the fact that you know people who've done it.


I most certainly did NOT say that, because widespread insurance fraud exists,
therefore it is being indulged in by the OP's particular neighbors. I asserted
a *possibility*.

Furthermore, I did NOT say that therefore it could be included there was no roof
damage due to the hail.

All that I have ever asserted is that the neighbors are getting roofing work
done is not conclusive evidence that there is hail damage to the OP's roof!

Lack of evidence .not equal. evidence to the contrary. I argued for the former.

I said that there was reason to be skeptical as to the cited evidence of roof
damage - that some neighbors are having roof work done.

That's all.

Do you understand now.

Lots of people here seem rather quick to call people names and accuse
people of illicit dealings. What's the point of starting with that as
your initial conclusion? It doesn't hurt to assume people are on the
up-and-up until proven otherwise. The truth will come out in the end,
and one thing I've learned in life (although I confess that I have as
much trouble practicing it all the time as anybody else) is that it's a
lot more painful to start out believing that someone was wrong when it
turned out they were right, than the opposite.


Perhaps it would be better for you in life to learn that holding a skeptical
mind as to what people say or do, can be done without "believing that someone
was wrong". Then you won't be quite so set up for surprises, whether good or
bad, and dissapointments.

I recommended that the OP get the roof inspected again, and get on the roof with
the inspector. I do agree with you that they should contact a property lawyer
*if* they find actual hail damange such that work needs to be done on the roof.

Banty