It’s great you can hand wave it away, but I doubt the SFFD is responsible for policing their subscribers for fires. Fire departments typically don’t even do it in their districts.
I *got *your point. Your point is simply wrong, stupid, ignorant, bad, and wrong.
The neighbors clearly did not need Cranick’s fire put out, as evidenced by the fact that their property was not damaged. Dousing Cranick’s fire would have only benefitted Cranick.
Please provide a cite to show that you know more about fighting fires than people who actually work for a fire department. Please provide a cite to show that this particular fire was dangerous to let burn. (Counter cite: it didn’t spread.) Please provide a cite to show that there was another building nearby that was in danger. (Counter cite: I already observed that they’re in a rural area, and someone else actually looked it up and found that the nearest building is three football fields away.)
Please provide the records that show that you’ve called the FD every time you or anyone in your area has lit a gas stove or a candle.
I doubt that the subscribers’ contracts read “we will protect you from fire as long as it doesn’t benefit a freeloader in any way”. That’s cutting off the nose to spite the face.
How would any trained firefighters have made any determination at all about the fire when they had no plans to even show up at all?
Do you get that point, you moronic sub-Neanderthal knuckle-dragging idiot? Is it piercing the void, Vern? No firefighter made a decision that the fire was “safe”. The decision made was NOT TO SHOW UP AT ALL.
Oh, and just to pretend that you have ever raised anything resembling a valid point, even the points you borrow from other people: If the nearest building is [OMG!!!] THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS AWAY [/OMG!!!] and in no possible danger, then why did the neighbor feel the need to call for help? Can you enlighten us? The class is waiting.
Careful with that strawman. It’s probably quite flammable.
The FD did everything *necessary *to protect the property of those people who paid their fees. Dousing Cranick’s fire was not necessary. Would it have made it safer? Sure. It just *wasn’t a necessary degree of **extra *safeness. It *also *would have been safer to dig up every single piece of plant matter to create a 100-yard-wide border of bare dirt on every side of the fire. Are you going to fault them for not doing that, too?
It’s the obligation of those affected to request their services. Do you seriously expect the FD to patrol every area they cover constantly to see if there are any fires? :rolleyes:
Yes, they did, once someone who had a right to their services contacted them. Then they came out and took whatever actions they deemed necessary to protect that covered property, which apparently was “not much.”
Because it’s the job of the FD to assess the threat. Which they did. Once someone was potentially threatened who had a right to their services.
You have no class.
The whole pay to play system is a disaster waiting to happen. I’m still curious what the neighbors reaction would have been if they had come home to a burnt down house because they had been away, and then LATER found out Cranick HAD called.
You get what you pay for.
Once again you’ve missed the point that this is what the community wanted. It’s been that way for 20 years. It was that way when Cranick’s our previously caught fire. It was that way with the three other houses and a barn went up in flames.
You’re playing a lot of what if’s in a desperate attempt to shift the situation into something it’s not.
Under the system that the community wanted, the system Cranick chose to be a part of (and subsequently opt out of), there is no fire department. There is no one to come out and check on fires to see if they are dangerous or not. That is the way the community wants it. Why? My guess is that having a fire department is expensive, and these residents were taxed enough already. So those that wanted the fire department to help, paid the subscription fee.
There is no question it’s a dumb ass situation. There is no question that worse scenarios will eventually play out. There will be a point where a non-subscriber loses their life.
But until then, this is the situation that the residents want.
Repeat that out loud for the class, then write it 20 times: this is the situation that the residents want.
Although, we could also frame yet another “what if” as: what if Cranick hadn’t called? What if he had the stones to accept that he fucked up and let it burn.
Being away from your house, which is out in the middle of no where, means that it might burn down. Hell, I live in city with a FD less than a mile away, if my neighbour’s house goes up, and we’re all away, it’s going to burn unchecked.
The only resolution to that is then MANDATE everyone have a monitoring system in place. Good luck getting Cranick to pay for that subscription fee.
I agree it’s a fucked up system. Do you agree that the neighbors who HAD paid their $75 deserve no protection because (again, a “what if”) they had been away and a non-subscribing customer called about the potential danger? In the original OP link the Cranick house fire HAD reached the neighbors property. A stretch, I know, but plausible.
*Deserve * is the wrong word.
It’s a *consequence *of the system they chose to be a party of. At system that has been around for 20 years.
And it’s not even a stretch. Lots of people lose their homes because forest fires start in one place and spread to another.
The point is that it has nothing to do with the fire department. They have no obligation to this area, which is what the area wants.
To have a system where a train professional drives out to suspicious fires costs money. The community, over the past 20 years, had the opportunity to set up that system. Instead they chose this system.
Fire spreading from one house to another is a community problem, that requires a community solution. The fire department can’t be expected to solve it for them, against their wishes.
So, in summary, Cranick may have started this whole mess but ultimately it’s the community to blame. I can get behind that fact.
All your other nonsense aside, I’ve never said anything about patrolling. I guess we can both let the strawmen we burn light our way.
The fire department knew that there was a full-on house fire in the area of at least one paying subscriber. By your reasoning, the good and proper thing to do is to let the fire spread until that subscriber feels threatened–assuming they’re even home and awake–then have a qualified professional check on it. When dealing with fire, that is insanity.
Of course it’s insane. That’s because it’s a crappy system they set up.
Maybe not so much.
According to this, it is the city commissioners who decided what system the residents would be a part of, despite a flood of objections from both citizens and firefighters.
It also seems that even the local Fire Chief isn’t very happy with that decision.
Did you read that article?
It’s a shitty situation, that results in people losing their houses. Residents can either choose to fix it, or choose to leave.
There was also not mention of a city commissioner.
The county commission voted to continue the pay per spray system.
You get the government you deserve.
And he shouldn’t be happy with it, it’s a shitty situation. Of note from the article you linked to without comment:
The residents are welcomed to change the system, or move. That’s how democracy and capitalism work. But change means increased taxes, and taxes are evil. So sayth the lord.
It was back on Page 5, Post 221that I first said
That does not change the reality that the system in place is a stupid system, bound to fail. But it’s the system this (or is it that?) community chooses for itself. I’ve repeatedly declared that Cranick is also stupid for choosing to opt out of the stupid system available. And for some other choices involving moronic relatives and matches.
What does this choice of a system say about the whole community? I’m going to go with stupidly short sighted. (Just being generous, I am.)
I can sneer because I live in one of those socialist places where the fire department is supported by taxes. Taxes may be bad, but fire protection is good. Like so many of the benefits of our social contract, the good (the benefits) outweighs the bad (the tax burden). At least that’s how us hippy socialists see it.
That’s what leads to communism! If it wasn’t for taxes, Cranick could have hired more employees, and blah blah blah
Taxes are evil, choice is good!
:D:D:D
Careful, you’ll attract the mushroom queen. 
County commissioners, then. Great catch! :rolleyes:
Well, I can’t really disagree with anything you said.
So… crap… guess the fun’s over.