Another stupid analogy. Deal with the simple cold hard facts. They would have gotten their money. Nobody was going to short the fire department. they would have gotten full payment.
The firemen would feel better about themselves, many of them do care about saving homes and providing a service to the public.
The community would have gotten all the money they would have used and more.
The end result. On one hand , a home saved and animals still alive. The community would still have a tax payer in the home. All the familiy’s memories would still be in tact.
On the other hand, you would lose your enjoyment that a guy who is clearly not as good a person as you are, not as smart as you are , learning a horrible lesson. I am sure he did. He will ,I am sure pay the fee next time. Doesn’t that make you all warm and fuzzy.
Of course ponying up about 4 or 5 K to pay the fire department would have also taught him a lesson. But that is not enough for you. A little more pain and blood was needed. You got it.
Bullshit. They may, or may not have; we will never know for certain. The risk was taken once and it did not pay off. Or perhaps the firemen should ride with a lawyer to ensure that the offers by Crannick and his neighbors are legally binding?
You can’t read plain English can you?
The neighbour called the fire department. They came out in response to his call. Therefore the neighbour owes them $500. The bill has recently, or will soon, land in his mailbox. This bill is due to the irresponsible actions of the grandson.
“If I were in his shoes” is an expression meaning that I put myself in his place. You understand that, right?
If I were faced with a bill for $500 as a result of the negligence of an adult living next door, I would expect the negligent adult to pay the bill. In this case, I’d expect those incendiary neighbours to pay my bill.
Given that experience shows that less than one half the callout charges issued to people who call out the fire department get paid, I’d say it’s an act of gross over-optimism to assume that any particular bill would be paid. So you should assume the fire department get no money in any given case.
My understanding is exactly the opposite - that he has not paid in the past.
Examiner is back - Examiner.com He says he paid in the past. But guys on this board will tell you all about his character. They have real insight.
Glen Beck jumped all over Cranick. I would expect that from him.
How do you know this?
And at any rate, the point is moot. The system that these people have chosen for themselves is NOT one of “people with fires pay for putting the fire out” They have chosen “eveyone pay a small fee yearly, and if you have a fire, it will be put out.” If someone opts out of paying the yearly fee, they cannot “opt in” after the fact.
You may not like this system, but that is the way it is. The firemen’s feelings do not enter into the picture.
Here is where you cross the line. You accuse me of being happy that this guy was taught a lesson. You are talking shit about ME, when I have do no such thing to you in this thread. You have no idea do you? Your argument is so weak that you merely rely on insults.
You are trolling in this thread, plain and simple.
Bye.
Cranick says he paid in the past. But the thing you’re forgetting is that in the present–that would be now–he has not signed up for the subscription. Oh, yes, and in the past, he did not sign up for the subscription and then was happy to pay when it turned out that he really did need the service.
Talking to gonzomax is getting to be like Groundhog Day. And reading his responses shows that his view of rural Tennessee life is like Pleasantville.
Actually, he was happy to promise to pay. That’s quite different than actually paying.
That’s incorrect. Plenty of people have refused to pay the fire department for putting out the fire, thus why they stopped the practice of letting people pay afterward.
Well there were 2 who promised. Even the slanted fools on this thread can understand that doubles the chances. But proof can only be that they paid. That is impossible to show since they watched the home burn to the ground and the animals die. Therefore , you can claim they would not have paid. How? I claim with the same certainty, that the fire dept. would have been paid in full. That is the same as you saying they would not.
They probably could have set up a fund too. I think they would have gotten their money by a 3 to 1 margin. I have 3 screnarios they get paid. You have 1 they don’t. You lose.
I disagree about the assertion upthread that you’re trolling, gonzomax. I think you’re just plain insane. That post of yours just above evidences absolutely no competent reasoning whatsoever.
Again, I promise to pay you $1 million if you admit you’re wrong in this thread. It’s like you’ve got the money in your pocket already!
I also promise. That just doubled the chances!
History. Much like we all knew the Lions weren’t going to the Superbowl this year.
The Lions beat the Redskins Sunday, moving on their march to the bowl. Buy your tickets now.
I suppose they’ll be playing the Buffalo Bills?
In the first place, I am well aware that the fundamental reason the home burned down was because Cranick did not pay the 75 bucks. I do not know why he did not pay. Neither do you.But was he deserving to have his home burn down and his dogs and cat die in a fiery and painful death? I think we have some responsibility toward each other. I think we should care and feel about the neighbors. Firemen standing outside his home while it burned down was a horror and wrong. They should have put the damn fire out. That is what they do. That is what they should have done.
They could have charged him a lot for putting out the fire. There were several avenues of collection. The odds are they would have collected a lot of money and Cranick would have been grateful and paid his 75 bucks forever and ever. He would gladly pay whatever the fire department wanted. At that point ,it was a bargain. But, if for some strange reason, they did not get paid, I could still live with it. I have a lot more trouble understanding a society that allows a mans house to burn down when they were there and could have prevented it. That is not what a caring society does.
You guys give silly arguments. I knew damn well it was his fault. But when his house burned down and the animals died, I did not for 1 second think he had it coming. that it was right . I did not think the firemen should have sat by and watched his house burn and listen to the screams of his animals as they burned to death. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives. The firemen will pay for this terrible event.
And do not waste your time giving me long distance analysis of Cranick. I am sure he was a terrible person and deserved what happened. I wonder if he would have helped if your home was on fire? But if you would not, I know things about you that are discomforting. Thinking ,caring people don’t find a way to enjoy another mans misery.
Let’s see…so far in this thread, you’ve failed English reading comprehension and now you’re up to failing mathematics. What other basic subjects are you going to bomb next? “The odds are” based on what the population concerned has done in the past. “The odds are” that he won’t pony up the money.
Barring hyperbole, and those who are just enjoying poking you with a stick, there is nobody who is “enjoying his misery”. It’s a damn shame his house burned down. Terrible that animals may have died.
We’re calling him an idiot for not paying a small sum, KNOWINGLY, in order to pay for fire protection. The fact that the system was set up that was was stupid. Many people here agree with that sentiment. However, the man was a part of the stupid system and he chose not to work within it, thus making him doubly stupid.
Enjoying misery? No.
Pointing out that he was an idiot in an idiotic system? Yes.
No the odds weren’t YOU FUCKING RETARD. He said he learned his lesson the last time his house caught on fire and they put it out. Then he let his grandson carelessly burn trash near the trailer. He learned nothing. He is as almost as stupid as you.
Wow you’re a tool. A giant tool. I actually logged in to respond to post #821, and was unsurprised to see that once again you wrote the same useless shit. 17 pages now of you repeating the same tired shit. What the fuck is wrong with you that you still haven’t grasped what’s going on here. 17 pages of people showing you that everything you said was wrong, way back at the beginning. Actual facts. That you willfully disregard to repeat the same stupid shit.
So one more time, just for shits and giggles: There was no option to pay after a fire starts. None. For 17 pages we’ve told you that. Please for the love of all that is holy don’t bother to tell us once again what you think *should have *happened. There are only two should haves worth of discussion: Cranick should have paid his subscription fee, and the community should have a better way of funding the fire department. Everything after that is a direct consequence.
And just to drive the point home, there were other fire departments have had the pay-per-fire system. SDFD was not one of them. Do you realize that?
Of the few that had the pay-per-fire, most have since stopped offering it. Did you know that?
The reason they stopped was that they realized people will promise anything when their house is on fire. But less than 50% would actually pay.
What that means is that the fire department is perpetually underfunded. How do you not realize that? It’s been 17 pages. Wake the fuck up. A fire department doesn’t work when they aren’t properly funded. Get that through your thick skull and stop wasting your time telling us what your uninformed opinion is of what *should have *happened. The rest of us know what should have happened. You’re the only one left.