As far as Fatima Hawkins goes, do you think it’s possible that, even under the old system, a person with no criminal record might actually turn out to be dealing drugs? If so, why does this incident serve as an indictment of changed hiring practices?
As far as the cheaters go, it’s a simple logic problem, which i’m confident that even you can figure out: is it possible that cheating firefighters, who were already part of the BCFD before the “lowered hiring practices” went into effect, are a result of the “lowered hiring standards.” Is it likely that firefighters who entered under the old standards are bad because of the new standards? Or is it more likely that they are just cheating opportunists who would have cheated no matter what changes had been made (or not made) in hiring practices?
And your whole last paragraph, with its “worst kept secret” bullshit, substitutes rumor and anecdote for evidence. The OP made a very clear assertion that the Fatima Hawkins case and the exam cheating were symptoms of the changes in hiring practices, and no-one has yet been able to back this up with any actual evidence.
Newspapers don’t offer the same measure of follow-up that they once did. It’s not a conspiracy so much as a news article won’t be followed if it doesn’t sell papers. After the initial story has caught the public interest, further information, be it positive or negative, isn’t going to earn the column inches. Not a refusal, per se, but a business decision.
Not being intimately knowledgeable of the Walbrook program, I’ll presume those persons demonstrated sufficient skills to be granted a waiver. That is quite another thing from street level entrants being given a pass.
I’m not sure what you mean that they have ‘disappeared’ from my thread title. I requested no change in the thread title, and see no evidence of moderator activity.
As far as Fatima Hawkins is concerned, I’ve noted that her booking data regarding the controlled substance charges indicates her height/weight is 5’08" and 180#. That’s off the chart by +13# according to Taber’s Medical Dictionary.
I don’t know if the subject is weighed at time of booking, if the data is taken from their operator’s license, or is accepted verbatim. We’re back to the same problem of physical ability, and candiates being pushed through, as you observed in post #7.
The exam cheats are a different, but related issue. As you’ve correctly noted, they were hired prior to changes in the recruitment and hiring/training standards. That being said, consider the effects of hiring procedure change on an organization such as a career fire department.
Every rank and file member, black or white, female or male, is now incensed that the standards were adjusted, eased, fudged, or whatever to admit members who didn’t meet the same standard as they. They met the standards, why shouldn’t the n00bs? This is destructive to morale. Those who were promoted via hard work and study learn of cheating. FPAs who were hired but can’t pass the test after a year on the payroll are an embarrassment to the department.
Unlike a questionable hire at some nameless business, whose worst sin will be failure to meet sales quota, or poor customer satisfaction rankings at the Help Desk, the fire/EMS system is a different beast.
There’s a fire reported in your house, with possible entrapment. I enter, as part of a two person search team. We find a victim. The unqualified person can’t handle removal of the victim, so now, I have two people to remove from the dwelling.
You live in a renovated upscale two story row dwelling, and a fire starts in the attic two dwellings away. Analysis of building construction, factoring weather, and such is vital regarding initial tactical orders. Except on the first truck you have one of the cheaters. One of the guys who really didn’t earn his stripe. He fucks up with his tactical commands, and the initial dwelling, as well as yours is lost.
Let’s go one further. Engine company dispatched to ‘odor in the vicinity of’ call. Small tanker truck (stolen), parked in an industrial park, draining unknown liquid, with close proximity to an aquifer leading to environmenatally sensitive property. The cheating officer is in command and fails to do what he/she should do to mitigate/contain the spill in a timely fashion.
Who is on the hook for all of this shit? You! You’re the taxpayer! After Shiela has her photo op, it’s on you, and she could give a shit less.
Sure. Any department under fire for a monochrome past, and trying experiments to increase racial diversity, would love to have someone like the OP spouting off to anyone who’d listen. Have him apply, appending the OPs in the threads I cited above and this one, and tell me when they make him Chief. Point being, there’s a point when your ability to do your job doesn’t quite outweigh your inability to let your bosses do theirs.
The point of the test-cheating scandal was that it had nothing whatever to do with BCFD standards, but was still brought up by the OP for no apparent reason other than that it cast black personnel in a bad light. This is a bad habit from both an intellectual and a moral standpoint, and it shouldn’t surprise that folks want to discourage it.
Most recently, danceswithcats entertains us with (1) a criticism of newspapers not offering the follow-up they once did, when the real problem is that they consistently fail originally to report what he seemingly can’t help saying they did; (2) a discussion of Fatima Hawkins’ weight, which (weight, not Ms Hawkins) was an issue in another of the recent failed threads he started criticizing affirmative action in the Baltimore Fire Department, but not this one; (3) an assertion that lowered standards are destructive to morale, when there’s no evidence whatsoever that morale is actually down, that morale has anything to do with performance, or that lowered standards are the cause of morale problems, and despite the fact that morale is usually affected more by pay, time off, and loud bigoted malcontents in the station than by egalitarian hiring practices. He ends with a couple of heart-rending imaginary scenarios in which you could lose your life or give your children cancer if you don’t agree with him. And, in his imagination, there’s really no other choice but to agree with him, so go ahead. But in the real world, remember that a minority of the firefighters make a minority of the mistakes, with the rest – the most – made by the majority.
BiblioCat, most people probably don’t care about ethnic diversity within the Fire Department at the moment their house is on fire. But most, when their house is not actually on fire, might give it a thought or two. And most of the time, most houses are not actually on fire, and their residents are thinking clearly. So your choice is clear. Either become history’s most prolific arsonist, or, next time things in Pennsylvania get a little too excited, pat dances on the head, give him some cocoa, and send him to bed before he starts annoying the normal-and-aboves again.
[QUOTE=BiblioCat] danceswithcats has never claimed to be associated with the BCFD; he’s a volunteer firefighter in Pennsylvania.
The Baltimore City FD would be lucky to have him.[/QUOTE
Sure. Any department under fire for a monochrome past, and trying experiments to increase racial diversity, would love to have someone like the OP spouting off to anyone who’d listen. Have him apply, appending the OPs in the threads I cited above and this one, and tell me when they make him Chief. Point being, there’s a point when your ability to do your job doesn’t quite outweigh your inability to let your bosses do theirs.
The point of the test-cheating scandal was that it had nothing whatever to do with BCFD standards, but was still brought up by the OP for no apparent reason other than that it cast black personnel in a bad light. This is a bad habit from both an intellectual and a moral standpoint, and it shouldn’t surprise that folks want to discourage it.
Most recently, danceswithcats entertains us with (1) a criticism of newspapers not offering the follow-up they once did, when the real problem is that they consistently fail originally to report what he seemingly can’t help saying they did; (2) a discussion of Fatima Hawkins’ weight, which (weight, not Ms Hawkins) was an issue in another of the recent failed threads he started criticizing affirmative action in the Baltimore Fire Department, but not this one; (3) an assertion that lowered standards are destructive to morale, when there’s no evidence whatsoever that morale is actually down, that morale has anything to do with performance, or that lowered standards are the cause of morale problems, and despite the fact that morale is usually affected more by pay, time off, and loud bigoted malcontents in the station than by egalitarian hiring practices. He ends with a couple of heart-rending imaginary scenarios in which you could lose your life or give your children cancer if you don’t agree with him. And, in his imagination, there’s really no other choice but to agree with him, so go ahead. But in the real world, remember that a minority of the firefighters make a minority of the mistakes, with the rest – the most – made by the majority.
BiblioCat, most people probably don’t care about ethnic diversity within the Fire Department at the moment their house is on fire. But most, when their house is not actually on fire, might give it a thought or two. And most of the time, most houses are not actually on fire, and their residents are thinking clearly. So your choice is clear. Either become history’s most prolific arsonist, or, next time things in Pennsylvania get a little too excited, pat dances on the head, give him some cocoa, and send him to bed before he starts annoying the normal-and-aboves again.
Bah. My fault for a missed keystroke. But it would help if hitting preview let you actually preview.
Sure. Any department under fire for a monochrome past, and trying experiments to increase racial diversity, would love to have someone like the OP spouting off to anyone who’d listen. Have him apply, appending the OPs in the threads I cited above and this one, and tell me when they make him Chief. Point being, there’s a point when your ability to do your job doesn’t quite outweigh your inability to let your bosses do theirs, which is a perk of being a volunteer.
The point of the test-cheating scandal was that it had nothing whatever to do with BCFD standards, but was still brought up by the OP for no apparent reason other than that it cast black personnel in a bad light. This is a bad habit from both an intellectual and a moral standpoint, and it shouldn’t surprise that folks want to discourage it.
Most recently, danceswithcats entertains us with (1) a criticism of newspapers not offering the follow-up they once did, when the real problem is that they consistently fail originally to report what he seemingly can’t help saying they did; (2) a discussion of Fatima Hawkins’ weight, which (weight, not Ms Hawkins) was an issue in another of the recent failed threads he started criticizing affirmative action in the Baltimore Fire Department, but not this one; (3) an assertion that lowered standards are destructive to morale, when there’s no evidence whatsoever that morale is actually down, that morale has anything to do with performance, or that lowered standards are the cause of morale problems, and despite the fact that morale is usually affected more by pay, time off, and loud bigoted malcontents in the station than by egalitarian hiring practices. He ends with a couple of heart-rending imaginary scenarios in which you could lose your life or give your children cancer if you don’t agree with him. And, in his imagination, there’s really no other choice but to agree with him, so go ahead. But in the real world, remember that a minority of the firefighters make a minority of the mistakes, with the rest – the most – made by the majority.
That post is a pip. I mean, there’s shifting your ground when the OP doesn’t work, and then there’s teleporting to a distant planet. Wow.
BiblioCat, most people probably don’t care about ethnic diversity within the Fire Department at the moment their house is on fire. But most, when their house is not actually on fire, might give it a thought or two. And most of the time, most houses are not actually on fire, and their residents are thinking clearly. So your choice is clear. Either become history’s most prolific arsonist, or, next time things in Pennsylvania get a little too excited, pat dances on the head, give him some cocoa, and send him to bed before he starts annoying the normal-and-aboves again.
Reading for comprehension just isn’t your strong suit. I’ve said time and again that there is nothing wrong with qualified candidates, regardless of their ethnicity or sex. Accepting unqualified candidates into a profession as dangerous as firefighting just to achieve diversity presents a real and present danger to the candidate, the existing firefighters, and the public they attempt to serve and protect.
Again, your number skills are flawed. If you’re going to claim 5 out of 26, cite them. For example, 3 out of 5, or 60% of your posts in this thread show that you’re a noisome fuckwit. The other two (#23 and #24) are are notable in that you haven’t misquoted me or performed some form of mathematic wankery.
Hrm. I didn’t say that recruits cheated, nor did I say the test was too easy. Besides that, easier tests would tend to lessen the need to cheat, sparky. I never claimed that any person’s ethnicity was a predisposing factor for crime, nor did I allege unimpeachable character. Sorry, you fail again. But hey, thanks for playing, anyway. Here’s a copy of our home game, and you’ll also receive a year’s supply of powdered instant low-fat Go Fuck Yourself in chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry, so you can Go Fuck Yourself at home or at work.
It’s funny you should say this, because that is my impression of you. In fact, when I first saw this thread title and the fact that you posted it, I didn’t even bother to open it, because I knew it would simply be another case of you misunderstanding or misconstruing something. Knowing that it was from you, I knew it would be a wildly off-the-mark indictment of an organization because they tried to do something to increase the number of African Americans in their midst.
After a few days, I figured I’d check it out. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It’s exactly as one might have predicted without even opening up the thread.
Did I miss dances post about the BCFD veteran who killed those 3 people in their SUV with the firetruck he was driving?
An incident, indisputably worse than anything dances has blamed on the slackened hiring practices, the fault of a veteran of the force. . .and nothing on it from this guy who is so concerned with the integrity of the BCFD.
You didn’t miss anything, dim bulb, other than the point of my previous and present post. One more fucking time: I’ve been pitting a testing protocol and hiring procedure which admits unqualified persons. White, black, or paisley. Male, female, or hermaphrodite.
Was the accident a nasty incident? Of course. Was it in any way attributable to the testing and hiring procedures which I’ve decried? No.
To go a little further, it is sad to say that fire/EMS apparatus accidents occur almost daily across the US. In major metro areas such as Baltimore, they happen with greater frequency. The operator and officer in the incident you’re referencing were both negligent, and will likely be sued by the estates of the deceased.
Drug dealing and cheating on promotional exams are not daily occurrances in fire departments across the US. Hence, one is notable and worthy of pitting, and the other is not. You also get a copy of the home game, and thanks for trying.
So, in the absence of column inches in the newspapers, you choose to substitute your evidence-free speculation? Call me crazy, but that seems no more reliable than the newspaper reporting that you’re criticizing.
I said that they had suddenly disappeared as evide3nce for the accusation made in your thread title, viz. that the BCFD has again been burned by lowered hiring standards.
First you raised Hawkins and the exam cheats as if they were prima facie evidence of lowered hiring standards. Then, when i made a long post demonstrating that there was no evidence of any link between these incident and the changed hiring practices, you conveniently dropped them from your response.
And now we see even more goalpost shifting from you, as evidenced by this…
The question of whether Fatima Hawkins is physically able to perform the duties of a firefighter is an important one. Firefighting is a physical job, and certain levels of physical strength and fitness should be required.
But your OP made no mention of this. In your OP you presented her drug arrest as the sole evidence for the problems caused by lowered hiring standards. You have still to demonstrate that there was any way that her drug dealing would have been caught under the old system. If you have evidence that the new system missed her propensity for drug dealing, but that the old system would have picked up on her propensity for drug dealing, then you need to present it.
The question of whether she height and weight are good enough is an important one, but unless you can demonstrate some correlation between a person’s Body Mass Index and their propensity to deal drugs, your OP remains a bit fat crock of shit.
So the new hiring practices not only lead to lowered standards among new recruits, they also cause long-term firefighters to cheat? Give me a fucking break! You truly are a master of pulling stuff out of your ass. You have provided no evidence in this thread for any of your actual claims. As i said earlier, it might be that the new hiring practices have lowered the capability of the BCFD, but your largely unrelated anecdotes do not serve as evidence of that.
I’m well aware of the critical skills required by firefighters, and the importance of the job they do. The fact that you have descended into this sort of emotionalism doesn’t say much for your actual argument.
I notice that you have now also conflated “cheaters” and those who get in under the new hiring practices. You can imply that those people are cheaters if you like, but you still haven’t demonstrated that the changes to the hiring practices have resulted in reduced quality firefighters in the city of Baltimore. The fact that you can offer hypotheticals is not evidence.
Oh Jesus, won’t somebody please think of the taxpayers!
I am a Baltimore taxpayer, and if you actually provided a convincing argument that BCFD levels of proficiency have declined, i’d be interested to hear it. But so far, you haven’t.
Yes, they are worthy of pitting. As discrete incidents. I think the exam cheating was bad, and i think drug dealing by a firefighter is bad. No argument there.
The point of your thread, however, was to take these incidents and use them as masturbation material for your hard-on regarding the BCFD’s hiring practices, despite the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever that the incidents are related.
I made an effort to convince myself for most of this thread that you were actually interested in discussing this issue rationally, but the way you constantly move the goalposts and draw spurious connections without offering any evidence for your main assertion has convinced me that i made a mistake. This is like so many of your other stupid rants, fueled by ignorance and stupidity, and nourished by small-minded parochialism.
It really does sometimes seem that you use choie’s template when you create your threads.
I’m still trying to figure out how you get from A to B
Died in a training exercise that violated dozens of national safety standards, an exercise put together by officers who were admitted long before any “lowering of standards.”
I’ve seen no evidence that the cheaters were all new firefighters who gained entry due to “lowered hiring standards”. Got some?
On this I agree with you. The BCFD’s removal of the “Derris and Blutarsky Certified Test for the Determination of Future Drug Dealing Potential” as part of the “lowering of standards” was stupid. They should reinstate it, as it’s obvious that the new standards fail in this regard.
Noose - I’m not aware of a test to determine the potential for someone to hang a noose, but if you come up with one, feel free to add it to the entry requirements. I won’t object.
Do you have any evidence that the things you bitched about were attributable to the testing and hiring procedures which you’ve decried?
So, in the absence of column inches in the newspapers, you choose to substitute your evidence-free speculation? Call me crazy, but that seems no more reliable than the newspaper reporting that you’re criticizing.
I said that they had suddenly disappeared as evide3nce for the accusation made in your thread title, viz. that the BCFD has again been burned by lowered hiring standards.
First you raised Hawkins and the exam cheats as if they were prima facie evidence of lowered hiring standards. Then, when i made a long post demonstrating that there was no evidence of any link between these incident and the changed hiring practices, you conveniently dropped them from your response.
And now we see even more goalpost shifting from you, as evidenced by this…
[QUOTE=danceswithcats]
As far as Fatima Hawkins is concerned, I’ve noted that her booking data regarding the controlled substance charges indicates her height/weight is 5’08" and 180#. That’s off the chart by +13# according to Taber’s Medical Dictionary.[.quote]The question of whether Fatima Hawkins is physically able to perform the duties of a firefighter is an important one. Firefighting is a physical job, and certain levels of physical strength and fitness should be required.
But your OP made no mention of this. In your OP you presented her drug arrest as the sole evidence for the problems caused by lowered hiring standards. You have still to demonstrate that there was any way that her drug dealing would have been caught under the old system. If you have evidence that the new system missed her propensity for drug dealing, but that the old system would have picked up on her propensity for drug dealing, then you need to present it.
The question of whether she height and weight are good enough is an important one, but unless you can demonstrate some correlation between a person’s Body Mass Index and their propensity to deal drugs, your OP remains a bit fat crock of shit.
So the new hiring practices not only lead to lowered standards among new recruits, they also cause long-term firefighters to cheat? Give me a fucking break! You truly are a master of pulling stuff out of your ass. You have provided no evidence in this thread for any of your actual claims. As i said earlier, it might be that the new hiring practices have lowered the capability of the BCFD, but your largely unrelated anecdotes do not serve as evidence of that.
I’m well aware of the critical skills required by firefighters, and the importance of the job they do. The fact that you have descended into this sort of emotionalism doesn’t say much for your actual argument.
I notice that you have now also conflated “cheaters” and those who get in under the new hiring practices. You can imply that those people are cheaters if you like, but you still haven’t demonstrated that the changes to the hiring practices have resulted in reduced quality firefighters in the city of Baltimore. The fact that you can offer hypotheticals is not evidence.
Oh Jesus, won’t somebody please think of the taxpayers!
I am a Baltimore taxpayer, and if you actually provided a convincing argument that BCFD levels of proficiency have declined, i’d be interested to hear it. But so far, you haven’t.
Yes, they are worthy of pitting. As discrete incidents. I think the exam cheating was bad, and i think drug dealing by a firefighter is bad. No argument there.
The point of your thread, however, was to take these incidents and use them as masturbation material for your hard-on regarding the BCFD’s hiring practices, despite the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever that the incidents are related.
I made an effort to convince myself for most of this thread that you were actually interested in discussing this issue rationally, but the way you constantly move the goalposts and draw spurious connections without offering any evidence for your main assertion has convinced me that i made a mistake. This is like so many of your other stupid rants, fueled by ignorance and stupidity, and nourished by small-minded parochialism.
It really does sometimes seem that you use choie’s template when you create your threads.
So, in the absence of column inches in the newspapers, you choose to substitute your evidence-free speculation? Call me crazy, but that seems no more reliable than the newspaper reporting that you’re criticizing.
I said that they had suddenly disappeared as evide3nce for the accusation made in your thread title, viz. that the BCFD has again been burned by lowered hiring standards.
First you raised Hawkins and the exam cheats as if they were prima facie evidence of lowered hiring standards. Then, when i made a long post demonstrating that there was no evidence of any link between these incident and the changed hiring practices, you conveniently dropped them from your response.
And now we see even more goalpost shifting from you, as evidenced by this…
The question of whether Fatima Hawkins is physically able to perform the duties of a firefighter is an important one. Firefighting is a physical job, and certain levels of physical strength and fitness should be required.
But your OP made no mention of this. In your OP you presented her drug arrest as the sole evidence for the problems caused by lowered hiring standards. You have still to demonstrate that there was any way that her drug dealing would have been caught under the old system. If you have evidence that the new system missed her propensity for drug dealing, but that the old system would have picked up on her propensity for drug dealing, then you need to present it.
The question of whether she height and weight are good enough is an important one, but unless you can demonstrate some correlation between a person’s Body Mass Index and their propensity to deal drugs, your OP remains a bit fat crock of shit.
So the new hiring practices not only lead to lowered standards among new recruits, they also cause long-term firefighters to cheat? Give me a fucking break! You truly are a master of pulling stuff out of your ass. You have provided no evidence in this thread for any of your actual claims. As i said earlier, it might be that the new hiring practices have lowered the capability of the BCFD, but your largely unrelated anecdotes do not serve as evidence of that.
I’m well aware of the critical skills required by firefighters, and the importance of the job they do. The fact that you have descended into this sort of emotionalism doesn’t say much for your actual argument.
I notice that you have now also conflated “cheaters” and those who get in under the new hiring practices. You can imply that those people are cheaters if you like, but you still haven’t demonstrated that the changes to the hiring practices have resulted in reduced quality firefighters in the city of Baltimore. The fact that you can offer hypotheticals is not evidence.
Oh Jesus, won’t somebody please think of the taxpayers!
I am a Baltimore taxpayer, and if you actually provided a convincing argument that BCFD levels of proficiency have declined, i’d be interested to hear it. But so far, you haven’t.
Yes, they are worthy of pitting. As discrete incidents. I think the exam cheating was bad, and i think drug dealing by a firefighter is bad. No argument there.
The point of your thread, however, was to take these incidents and use them as masturbation material for your hard-on regarding the BCFD’s hiring practices, despite the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever that the incidents are related.
I made an effort to convince myself for most of this thread that you were actually interested in discussing this issue rationally, but the way you constantly move the goalposts and draw spurious connections without offering any evidence for your main assertion has convinced me that i made a mistake. This is like so many of your other stupid rants, fueled by ignorance and stupidity, and nourished by small-minded parochialism.
It really does sometimes seem that you use choie’s template when you create your threads.
Whoever taught (five years after everyone else had tired of the phrase)danceswithcats the “reading for comprehension” insult did the world a disservice. Not just because coming from him, it’s stupid, wrong and hypocritical: that would actually have fit in perfectly with the rest of the sludge belched out by the OP. The problem is that it’s an inaccurate and dangerous operating instruction for dealing with his posts. For example, anyone reading this:
for comprehension would conclude that the OP was mad about some group of “members who cheated” who had something to do with “lowered hiring standards.” Neither part of the assertion is proven, of course, and never will be, but still, that passage reads like it. Comprehension, however, merely leads to a sneer:
Reading for comprehension is a fine thing, but not when someone’s feverishly writing against it. So let’s all mentally retire that little slur from danceswithcats. We’ll note parenthetically that the other reference, to the “dead trainee,” has nothing to do with this thread but is a reference to another in which the OP blamed the preference for diversity for a tragedy which turned out to have been caused by pretty much everything but that. Therefore, we can skip the offer of any danceswithcats “home games”: even snakes and ladders is a lot more fun than sheets and crosses.
mhendo, trying desperately as only an irretrieveably honest person would to relate the OP’s posts to the nearest reality checkpoint, is apparently not yet familiar enough with the progression these threads take to realize that the lie followed by the denial followed by the weaseling followed by the new lies is not meant to be true or even to be taken for truth. It’s not even meant to be an argument.
Face it: no one would be this lazy about cause and effect if they meant to persuade. No one would ask to be taken seriously with the claim that frequent deaths caused by negligent fire crews are less pitworthy than occasional incidents of drug dealing by fire personnel, and no one who believed enough in a volunteer fire department to join one would be criticizing professional standards for entry, no matter what they were.
These threads aren’t honest debates. They’re advertising. As in, “Very White Penn. Male, willing to take on and lose badly to much smarter people in the fight against affirmative action, hereby establishes his credentials.” He’s hoping that some schmoe too ashamed to join in the thread (and good for him) might e-mail him later, and then he’ll have a new friend.
mhendo, you’ll have to be disappointed. The dunce isn’t about to prove lowered standards, any link between that and racial diversity, any link between that and lowered performance, and any link between that and the make-up of the BCFD, Ms Hawkins’ weight, or anything else.