Oh wow, that’s awesome. The population of Obion County is 31,431. Which means the IAFF raised enough money to pay everyone’s subscription fee for the next 10 years!
Wait, what’s that? They didn’t offer any money? Then why did they bother to offer criticism?
Well, yeah, except for the unsinged fur, and the bein’ alive, and stuff.
But I agree, a bargain for $75. I’d gladly pay lots more.
Are you actually proud of being this stupid? Fire is not some magical thing that you don’t even notice until you open a door.
The firemen are bound by the policy, regulations, and laws governing their deployment. Really, how many times must you be told this before it penetrates? And, yes, the firemen very well may consider the policy to be a bad policy; however, it is the policy chosen, mind you, by the people of the rural areas of the county outside the municipalities. The decision for this was made by Cranick and his neighbors–but mostly by Cranick–long before the firemen appeared on the scene.
What they actually said, and what you completely misrepresented in your description of the very link you posted was that the policy is a bad policy.
Nobody’s enjoying his self-inflicted suffering, as far as I can tell. And nobody’s really calling him a bad citizen. What they’re doing is pointing out that the man’s not a good money manager, given that he didn’t pony up his debt from a previous fire (last I heard–maybe I missed that in the numerous times it’s been posted that he chose not to pay this year’s fee) and that he chose not to pay this year’s fee.
I see you’re still misrepresenting facts in this thread.
There have been reports that this baby koala may have been in the house during the fire, but the firemen refused to save it because Cranick didn’t have exact change for his $75 bill. 
Forgot something. By the way, gonzo how do you know the purportedly-present pets were not cowering behind another closed door inside the mobile home? After all, mobile homes are not open-bay barracks.
I am. If any animals died though (doubtful), I’d feel very sorry for them.
I would. Not for not paying the fee–but for not paying the fee because he thought he could fucking freeload anyway. I put him in the same bin as people who make a lot of money and then bitch about how “high” their income taxes are.
Because they are professional firemen decrying the terrible position the firemen were put in by politicians and cold hearted assholes. They empathized with the firemen. Pretty weak of them not to get excited by a good fire.
After a couple weeks your arguments have not gotten any better. All thats left of his home is a smoldering ash pile with the bones of 4 dead animals. What would they give him 75 bucks for? What? The home is gone, and all is well in emacknight land. But Cranicks home and animals are gone, therefore no 75 dollars is needed.
I’d say someone whose house has burned down needs money more than ever!
So, if you genuinely care about the guy, send him some money.
Hey, he can use it to adopt a new animal from a shelter.
Wait one minute, dude. What politicians and cold-hearted jerks put the county residents in that position? Last I checked (approximately one nanosecond ago), 'twere the voters of the county who made the decision.
And you’re continuing to misrepresent things with your last ad hom.
Note dood, the community south of them that has decided to institute a subscription service, will put out all fires. They will just charge the person for the services if they don’t kick in. That is the solution I suggested. That is what Cranick and his neighbor offered.
I am sure some of the dim wits in this thread would understand that paying 5K to put out a fire is a pretty good deterrent. Some silly people did not understand that. They cling to their terrible arguments forever.
The fact that they will put out all fires, will satisfy firemen who do not want to stand and watch a place burn down. They are trained professionals who want to help people, not just a select few.
Who’s that again? You sure that after this debacle they want to be famous for doing the exact same thing?
That’s the solution that didn’t work, remember? Partly because Cranick had already personallyproved people will promise anything when their house is on fire and return to “objective principle” (read: blind self-interest) when it suddenly isn’t anymore? And partly because (and it’s too bad the words were too big, because you never did answer this argument from pages ago) subscription services only work in advance, no matter what they’re for or what they cost?
For a couple of days now you have evinced an idea of firefighting (open a door to let the pets out and squirt from a distance) that would be funny if your persistence hadn’t made it clear that you are serious. Your user name alone is worth keeping from this: a firefighting strategy that fails to save the structure, depletes resources needed to save surrounding structures and kills firemen in order to save the charred bodies of dogs and cats, will now be referred to in my county as (and I’ll give you a capitalization-bolding promotion) the GONZOMAX PROTOCOL. I doubt that we’ll ever have to use it, because we train our people well, but it will be nice to have a name for “ignorant of the basic principles and completely f*&%ing up” that can be said over the radio.
At this point (and it’s only one word, as I will now demonstrate), dimwit, it’s only the trained professionals and everybody else except the Cranicks and you, who understand that sometimes the best plan is to let the place burn down, even if it’s a normal person who paid the fee.
Wake up. There is no such thing as a department that will put out all fires, the cost of putting out a fire is not the same as a subscription might cost, and the effects of mobile home fires, carelessly set by their owners with their pets inside and allowed to burn for a while, are not the fault of a neighboring community’s fire department.
Well that will convince him. I mean, the 700 previous posts didn’t, but number 812, well, that’s the magic post. This horse is as toasty as any pets the Crannick’s may have had. It’s a shame, too, because the Crannick’s pets may have been able to be saved by simply opening a door, and this thread may have been saved by simply opening one’s mind.
True, I suppose, I mean, I feel very guilty for offering an eight-hundred-and twelfth post when I could have realized that 787 was the post wherein this thread reached its Ka.
Apparently, you are in dire need of a Logic lesson. Here goes! The community you now mention is (present tense) instituting a subscription service. That means that before now, that community adhered to one of three policies:
[ol][li]They resonded to all fires outside their community.[/li][li]They responded to no fires at all outside their community.[/li][li]They had the identical policy the fire department you’re condemning has.[/ol][/li]
Seems like you’re the one clinging to a terrible argument. Your argument is so bad that the links you posted to bolster your argument actually state the opposite of your assertions.
The “select few” happen to be the community which is taxed (the municipality that wisely funds and trains a fire department and those individuals outside the community who actively enroll in a pay-in-advance subscription service. Those who are not included in the “select few” made two choices which removed them from the firefighting umbrella. Here, let me lay it out for you in a nifty chart.
[ul][li]Select Few[/li]Choices
[ol][li]Voted to not have a county fire department.[/li][li]Decided to pay the annual fee in advance.[/ul][/li][li]Other Folks[/li]Choices
[list=1][li]Voted to not have a county fire deparment.[/li][li]Decided to not pay the annual fee in advance.[/ol][/list][/li]
Note: Some of these folks–in either group–very well may have voted to have a county fire deparment but they remained resident in a county whose rural (unincorporated area) electorate voted in the majority to not have one of those nifty fire deparments.
I’d be willing to bet real money that the voting populace of “the community to the south” will bring that policy to a screeching halt when it gets too expensive to be fighting fires for folks outside their area who aren’t paying a nickel in taxes to support the fire department.
It’d be hilarious if a future episode of The Big Bang Theory gets that for a title.
I left out something in my post above. Please mentally add
after
Thanks.
Mr Cranick is known to renege on promises to pay. Why should the fire department believe him? As it’s said “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
As for the neighbour, if I were in his shoes I’d be wondering whether I could sue the grandson for the $500 he cost me by not supervising the fire. Paying the fire brigade costs would be a bit off my mental map.
You were not expected to pay. But Cranicks neighbor said he would. Cranick said he would. That is 2 ,count them ,two people who offered to pay the cost. I am sure some citizen could have started a fund if it came down to it. The fire dept. would have gotten their money.
You must know Cranick paid the 75 in the past. If you are such an expert on the kind of person he is, I am sure you know that much.
If the fire service was provided on a “pay for each use” basis, gonzomax might have a point.
However, the service was provided as a yearly subscription, wherein each subscriber paid a small amount each year, and probably would never use the service. But if they did need the (expensive) service, it would be provided to the subscriber at a much smaller cost.
This is akin to insurance. In fact, it is very much like insurance.
Now here is a direct comparison for you gonzomax. Say I refuse to buy car insurance for $75/year. And I then have an accident that writes off my $25,000 car. Is it reasonable of me to try to buy $75 car insurance AFTER THE ACCIDENT, and get a $25,000 payment? No it is not.
Would it be reasonable for me to offer to pay the $500 deductible, and then get a $25,000 payment? No. Would it be reasonable of me to want a new car with a “promise to pay them later”? No.
The bottom line is that you can’t opt out of a subscription service, only to opt in when you need it.
Save your ire for the stupid system that "saves’ taxes, or the stupid people that wanted to “save” $75/year and exposed themselves to risk.
But I don’t expect to get past the deliberate obtuseness or willfull ignorance or whatever it is you have going.
Has anyone definitively said whether or not the mobile home could have been saved? Or is that an assumption the same that all of us heartless bastards are being accused. Do we know what could have been saved if the firefighters had fought the fire? Or again are assuming that some heartless bureaucrat twirling his moustache said “Let Crannick eat fried cat”?
My understanding is that subscribers who fail to pay are called and given the chance to pay. Has this been confirmed, and were the Crannicks reminded of their delinquency?
As for neighbors paying, it is an unenforceable offer. If Crannick were my neighbor (and I knew the situation regarding the subscription), I would be happy that he and his family were safe, but I certainly would not pay for him. Just like if my neighbor does not have auto insurance, I’m not going to pay for his debts if he gets into a crash, even if it is not his fault. I would chip in if the accident weren’t his fault and both drivers insurance did not cover the costs.
