I'm going to prove it. Enough with the fire depart

[Luigi]

I am going to prove that VFD is volunteer fighting deleteriousness or at least use all my brain to back it up with evidence that will blow fire department theory away.
I'm getting sick and tired of the people who say "It's Volunteer Fire Department, a-hole. Think--all this stuff about fire. And Quigley said it. It's true. Daniel Handler personally sent me a letter and told me that it was true."
Snicket would never spoon feed you the biggest mystery of the book this early. And he wouldn't do something so easy.

[No One Mourns the Wicked]

Well, duh he wouldn't. But I highly doubt it is volunteer fighting deleteriousness.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

VFD=Volunteer Fire Detectives but not necessarily in a literal sense that they actually figure out the causes of fire which they might do. They're obviously not parading around the streets fighting fires but they are solving mysteries and helping to save the world from "fires" (bad things and misunderstanding conflicts) that plague it. They read and read to gain the knowledge and knowhow they need to go out and solve the word's major problems, that's what I believe.

[Travesty]

MynamesJacques...now there's a theory of yours that I like! I think that's really great.

[Luigi]

MynamesJacques said:

They read and read to gain the knowledge and knowhow they need to go out and solve the word's major problems, that's what I believe.

YES! YES! FIRE IS TOO SPECIFIC! DELETERIOUSNESS! Deleteriousness is a synonym for evil--or close enough to it. It's not just fire--it's fire, murders, stealing etc, etc! And it's a pretty rare word far's I know--the type of word Daniel would use, yes?

[Mills]

thats smart thinking of a big word that not many people use. i personally dont think that is voulenteer fire department. that just doesnt seem right to me. but delereriouness. hmmm

[Luigi]

Why would they need to wear disguses merely for fighting fire? If they were fighting deleteriousness in all forms, they might feel the need to use disguises for one reason or another--and Jacques said THEY AREN'T DETECTIVES! Somewhere he said that--I'll go skim the UA. But I know he said it.

[Luigi]

Turn to page 123 of the UA and Jacques says O was getting greedy so the VFD was divided into groups...greedy about what? Assumably--they fight fire. That's pretty one dimensional. But what if they found evil--deleteriousness of all shapes and forms? It's probably a big orginazation with lots of power and geniuses behind it--they could use it for money and personal gain. But some wanted to stick with the original noble cause--as L and J put it several times--of fighting deleteriousness, helping people.

The letter mentions Jacques pretending to be a detective. Thus, if he has to pretend, he isn't really one. Of course, he sort of is--'ts just not part of his title, I assume.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

I know he says they're not detectives, but like I said the name of VFD doesn't have to be completely literal.

[JM]

now that i think of it fire department doesn't seem right

[ice]

What if VFD (as in the organization's name) only stands for what you want it to stand for? This fits all theories and is more like them.

[luckylemon]

most likely not. than what would the piont of the books be? yes, deleteriousness is most likely right. how did you find that word anyway?

[Luigi]

I was looking for a "d" word for evil or harm, etc, on thesaurus.com and I saw the word.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

Deletriousness seems a little right, but would Handler use a big obnoxious, unpredictable word like that? I know the answer is yes but I still think volunteer fire detectives fits better.

[Luigi]

Yes, detectives would fit nicely and fire has a big role, but that's so small and so simple.