I wonder why the 21 year old living with his grandparents didn’t offer to chip in and pay the $75. It mentions he’s now living with his mom, I wonder if she’d paid.
Hey Gonzomax, have you sent your $75 yet?
There were lots of people who offered. Some have empathy, an alien concept for you. But it was never about the money. Let his house burn to teach him a lesson. You harp on the 75 like it was relevant. it was nothing. The story is about allowing a mans house to burn and his animals to die to teach a lesson to everyone else. Make sure the rest pay. It is a painful and expensive lesson, but so much fun for people like you.
Wall meet gonzomax, gonzomax meet wall.
Enjoy your conversation. :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
Just pointing out that you screwed up the quote and I didn’t write what your quote attributed to me…
Yo, gonzo. Is it possible, even remotely possible, that it’s not about teaching him a lesson nor about the money? Could it be, even remotely, possible that it’s about following the laws governing the deployment and use of municipal fire department personnel and equipment? Might it be, even slightly, possible that the law prohibits endangering fire department personnel in a situation where there are no actual humans in a building? Could it be, perhaps more than zero percent, possible that the municipal fire department is prohibited from attempting to save a structure that has no humans in it after that determination has been made?
I’m sorry about that.
For the people who keep saying that he did not pay, I will ask: Do they not have civil courts in Tennessee with the power to attach property and garnish wages?
I could swear I’ve seen this addressed earlier in the thread.
Earlier? Based on what Gonzomax just said I thought the thread just started. It’s like groundhog day in here.
{bolding mine}
Tell me, did anyone offer BEFORE the fire?
And you’re wrong about it being a lesson, this happens frequently enough for people to know (or should know) the fire department is not allowed to help them. The lesson has already been taughy, now it’s up to individual responsibility.
Do you think he learned his lesson, and paid the $75 subscription fee yet? What about the others in his area? Why do you suppose that there are still people that haven’t paid?
Doesn’t anybody want to actually read the thread before offering stupid comments?
This wasn’t a mandatory fee, nor a tax, either of which could be subject to enforcement. It was a voluntary subscription, you know, like cable TV. Nobody forces you to subscribe, and no court will attach your property or garnish your wages should you decide not to avail yourself of an optional service. You no pay-ee, you no get-ee TV. Or in this case, you no pay-ee, you no get-ee fire fighting.
Dumb ass Cranick knew the system. Everybody in the area knew the system. The city sends annual reminders to pay, by US Mail, and follows up with phone calls. Cranick declined to avail himself of an optional service. He knew the risk, probably better than most since he had a previous fire. He tried to game the system, offering to pay only after he had an immediate need, like trying to bind auto insurance from the scene of your accident.
Maybe he should have just paid his annual subscription, you think? And saved all those bibles.
Or maybe he should move the fucking garbage barrels away from his tinder box piece of shit of a dwelling!!!
Or instruct his apparent moron of a grandchild not to leave a fucking fire unsupervised when it’s surrounded by unmowed dry weeds and next to a crappy storage shed that’s probably full of old paint cans and gas containers maybe, don’t you think?
And no, gonzo it isn’t a fucking lesson, goddamn it, it’s a fucking consequence.
I know I’m way, way late to this thread, but I figured I’d just pop in and point out how happy I am with this story. No joke, I couldn’t be more delighted. It’s like every Aesop’s fable rolled into a single ball of karmic wonderfulness.
::sighs happily::
I disagree that fire departments in Canada would stand by and watch a home burn based entirely on the fact that the homeowner had failed to pay a voluntary subscription fee.
Your quotes refer to safety regulations for the firefighters, and expectations of service in remote areas. It is a fact that the firefighters in Ontario will treat all homes equally, even if a homeowner is in arrears in taxes, or otherwise has not contributed to the fire department. They would not do the exact same thing. They would not show up at a fire to protect the house that has paid a fee, while watching a non-fee payers house burn.
You are wrong.
You heartless bastard!
This story still doesn’t make sense.
The grandson is burning trash in the backyard, then goes inside to “take a shower.” So he has plenty of time to rub one out, get dressed, presumably smoke or drink something, before he hears the “popping sounds.”
So the fire spreads to a shack/shed, then across some grass, then to the house.
The grandson claims he tries to do something about the fire, also calls 911. But then, doesn’t bother to let the animals out of the house?
He was inside the house when he realized the fire had spread, and had time to go outside to play with it, and had time to go back inside to call 911. But didn’t have time to grab the bibles or animals on his way back outside? Where he then stood with his dick in his hand and let the house burn to the ground.
Another observation: the neighbour had a subscription, and received a service call. Do you think they had to pay the $500 fee that goes with that? Do you think either of the Cranicks are going to chip in to cover that guy’s bill? Not only did they put his house at risk, they also cost him $500.
Well, it is a socialist country, so I assume the fire department also has death panels.
Yes, paid for by a special tax on the bourgeoisie, in order that we may redistribute funds to the proletariat.
Better than here, where PG&E comes and burns down your house if you don’t pay your bill.
Be fair, now! PG&E will burn down your house regardless of whether you pay your bill. The PUC doesn’t allow PG&E to discriminate.
A consequence of the bosses stopping the firemen from putting the fire out.Oddly, if they put the fire out and then tried to get the 75 bucks or more from him. I would be on their side. If they charged him a lot more , I would have no problem with that. However allowing his home to burn down when they were there and could have stopped it is wrong. I guess allowing pets to die does not bother you guys. I suppose the fact the firemen who are usually pretty civic minded guys who feel a calling to help were forced to watch a home burn and dogs and cat die, is no big deal. I hope they don’t feel too much guilt. They may. But cold hearted pricks like you guys who can enjoy a man being taught a lesson with terrible results is sad.
I expect law suits. The SPCA is talking about cruelty charges. The firemen watching a home burn may get sued .
And it’s a lesson for everyone, not just the tard whose house burned down. Particularly the Tea Party children who cry about taxation being theft while blaming the government for not doing more to prevent tainted food and airline safety and oil spills and terrorist attacks and gas line explosions and insurance companies screwing you. Grownups pay for what they want. They also prepare ahead of time for bad stuff, rather than expecting everyone else to take care of it for them.