Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, because the firefighters made the decision and not someone higher up.

The place was probably a pit to begin with.

Cane wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.

Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?

Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.

While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.

"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.

Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.

The unethical and incompetence seen from the firefighters and city officials let three dogs and a cat from that household die in addition to losing the house and all the family's possessions. fething people in uniform and politicians deciding not to do the right thing just to make a point about $75. Thankfully none of the family members or other locals got hurt.

Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.

Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.

If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.

Kanluwen wrote:

Cane wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.

Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?

Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.

While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.

"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.

Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.

Yes, the point about not paying $75 was understood however it seems like a cruel and dangerous policy considering those firefighters seem like the only one able to respond to the situation. The 9-1-1 service basically ignored their concerns and the firefighters themselves didn't acknolwedge Cranick even though they came to the scene.

Having the ability to respond to an emergency such as a fire and choosing not to is unethical and incompetent when it comes to firefighting and the safety of others. It seems to also be counter-productive when there are people paying for the service surrounding such a non payer who also claimed to "forget" to pay for it and didn't seem to realize that they wouldn't put out the fire nonetheless; they would risk Cranick and his family fighting a fire with garden hoses for hours which endangers the neighborhood in addition to the Cranick family's pets and possessions lost even though it could spread.

Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.

Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.

If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.

Yes, the point about not paying for $75 was entirely stupid for Cranick. However how that city and firefighters handled the situation was much worse from an ethical standpoint. They only stand to lose in this situation over making a point about paying $75.

Analogies can be great tools but that doesn't really hold up to showing up to a neighbor's home and putting out their fire while intentionally ignoring their neighbor's distress over $75. fething disgusting.

Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.

It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.

The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.

gorgon wrote:

Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.

It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.

The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.

or just don't show up at all. Problem solved.

gorgon wrote:

Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.

It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.

The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.

I agree with this. There will be a minority of people who feel like frazzled does (they didnt pay the fine, feth them) - but most people who see this story are going to be more sympathetic to the home owner than to the fire fighters. This does not bode well for them. AF

Frazzled wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.

It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.

The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.

or just don't show up at all. Problem solved.

That would only make the situation worse since the neighborhood would take notice and the firefighters showed up to a neighbor of Cranick's that paid the amount, which is less than Space Hulk.

Agreed with gorgon, its nothing but bad PR in this specific case especially if Cranick truthfully forgot to pay and didn't realize that they wouldn't help anyway.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Cane wrote:They only stand to lose in this situation.

It's profoundly lose-lose for the firefighters. What if the unchecked fire had started a forest fire (they originally weren't going to come at all, right)? What if the owner's teenage daughter -- thought to be at a friend's house -- had come home early and was unknowingly in the house? What if a hundred other what ifs? Again, it's a lead story on MSNBC and negative attention at a national level, and the guy only lost the house and pets. This could be 10x worse.

The downside is huge. The upside is $75 and principle. So throw some water on the fire even if the guy was a dope. I'm not even coming at this from an ethical angle, but a public relations and common sense angle. It's *amazingly obvious* that nothing good is going to come out of the fire department standing around and watching the guy's house and pets burn.

I agree with this. There will be a minority of people who feel like frazzled does (they didnt pay the fine, feth them) - but most people who see this story are going to be more sympathetic to the home owner than to the fire fighters. This does not bode well for them. AF

I think it bodes just fine. scumbag's not a voter and has no legal claim.

rights aren't based on citizenship frazzled. they're based on the mere fact of being human. US courts have been pretty clear about this.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:rights aren't based on citizenship frazzled. they're based on the mere fact of being human. US courts have been pretty clear about this.

There is no "right" here. Please cite one.

legal claim = rights

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?


The sad thing is there's a good chance that town will no longer provide service, for pay or otherwise. As mayor I'd revoke that as soon as contractually able. All the people losing coverage should go and personally thank captain numbnuts...

Cane wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Cane wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Cane wrote:What a terrible system especially if you don't trust local government bureaucracy. Can you imagine if you had paid but there was a mess up in the paperwork/database that said you didn't and then have that be the reason for your house and potential loved ones to die? Not to mention all the bad PR this will generate and lawsuits likely to follow, hell according to the article one of the firefighters got assaulted afterwards.

Do you honestly think that if someone's life was in danger the firefighters would just throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, you didn't pay?" Seriously, are you kidding me?

Considering the unethical incompetence displayed by the firefighters and city officials it seems that way. They didn't even come to the area until Cranick's neighbor's field and house got caught on fire, the firefighters let the untrained Cranicks try to fight the fire themselves with garden hoses for hours. Can't believe that firefighters would let a fire burn and potentially spread, endangering not only that household's family but the neighborhood and local surroudnings. When they did arrive they just let it burn to the ground to demonstrate that that city's firefighting emergeny personnel won't serve unless you pay $75.

While not paying for that service is stupid, what those firefighters and city officials decided to do, or in this case not do, is much worse and far dumber. Those firefighters and city officials basically gave their career a huge hurdle that they might not ever be able to leap over and deservedly so.

"Unethical incompetence"?
Please, gtfo. They "didn't even come to the area" because they had no purview over it. You don't pay the $75, you're not eligible for coverage under their umbrella of responsibility.

Just like the New York City Police Department isn't responsible for what happens in Trenton, New Jersey or the Houston Department of Public Transportation isn't responsible for the crummy quality of roads in Cherokee, NC.

Yes, the point about not paying $75 was understood however it seems like a cruel and dangerous policy considering those firefighters seem like the only one able to respond to the situation. The 9-1-1 service basically ignored their concerns and the firefighters themselves didn't acknowledge Cranick even though they came to the scene.

Because by not paying the $75, he was telling the local fire department that he was able to deal with the situation himself. They do have paperwork and explain to you what the situation is if you don't pay the fee. So it's not like he wasn't informed.

Having the ability to respond to an emergency such as a fire and choosing not to is unethical and incompetent when it comes to firefighting and the safety of others. It seems to also be counter-productive when there are people paying for the service surrounding such a non payer who also claimed to "forget" to pay for it and didn't seem to realize that they wouldn't put out the fire nonetheless; they would risk Cranick and his family fighting a fire with garden hoses for hours which endangers the neighborhood in addition to the Cranick family's pets and possessions lost even though it could spread.

Seriously?

The ability to respond does not mean the responsibility to respond when it comes to firefighting. You don't pay? Sorry, you're not our responsibility and you sure as hell don't get the opportunity to sue us for damages your insurance won't cover.

We're not talking about doctors or law enforcement officers here. They're not required to respond to a situation they have no jurisdiction over.

In fact, just the opposite. They're obligated to stay the hell out of the way unless someone's life is in danger.
Which it wasn't, so...sucks for Cranick.

Take a deep breath, think hard, and realize you are so incredibly off target here that you make the accuracy of a Grot look impressive.

Firefighters do not decide "Oh, this guy didn't pay $75. We're gonna let his pets die, that'll show him!". Nor do city officials.

If someone opts not to pay for coverage, it's their own damned fault.
To use an example:
We have people in my neighborhood who refuse to pay the city of Raleigh or Durham for ambulance services, since we're waaaaaay out of the way from any EMS/Fire Department crews. They had to sign a waiver stating that they understood by refusing to pay, it meant that there was no expectation of service and the understanding that they legally cannot administer treatment to you(since by refusing to pay, you're effectively saying "No, I have my own means of treatment.), nor even let you sit in an ambulance unless it's a life threatening emergency and your personal doctor cannot get to you, but an EMS crew is already on the scene.

Yes, the point about not paying for $75 was entirely stupid for Cranick. However how that city and firefighters handled the situation was much worse from an ethical standpoint. They only stand to lose in this situation over making a point about paying $75.

I support the fire department in this.

I live in a town that has both an incorporated and unincorporated area. We, in the incorporated town, pay significantly higher taxes. We pay for city stickers for our cars, we pay extra property taxes to the village, we pay for our pet tags and any number of other fees.

Those who choose to live in unincorporated areas do so because they don't want to pay these fees and taxes. In essence, they don't want to contribute to the society around them, and are opting out.

That's "their right", and their choice.

So, you get one of these guys, and he doesn't want to pay for fire service. Why should the fire department that is funded by taxes that other people pay feel in any way responsible for his loss. When you opt out of a service, you can't whine about not getting that service.


Reading the article, the fire department didn't even leave town until a neighbor, who had paid for the service, had his property threatened. They then showed up and protected their paying customer's property.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

Firefighters weren't "watching".

They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.

Speaking from experience, they get exhausted after having to spend(in the case of what started as a bloody small electrical fire from a toaster oven that then burnt out my neighbor's entire home, gutting the walls) at times close to 4-5 hours doing hard work, busting down walls and manning hoses with enough pressure in them that they can strip flesh from bone if fired at people.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you. I have no duty to protect you.

Further, using this argument, all nearby persons, in fact all persons would have a duty to protect Mr. Nattering Nabob, and thus he can literally sue all persons in the US, including you and including me. No ing way.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

You guess wrong.

The same thing happened in 2008, but changes have yet to be made.

I'm also not sure you're actually reading the thread. There was no 'town' involved. This happened out in the countryside, where the residents have chosen to remain unincorporated. So no county fire service amongst other things, but hurray, much lower taxes! So that they're not left completely hanging in the wind, a nearby city offered to extend service to people outside its normal jurisdiction in the uncovered area for a yearly fee. Since this guy said, 'No, I don't need fire service,' when he had a fire, it essentially left the FD's hands tied.

Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

Thats because we're ornery!

Kanluwen wrote:
Because by not paying the $75, he was telling the local fire department that he was able to deal with the situation himself. They do have paperwork and explain to you what the situation is if you don't pay the fee. So it's not like he wasn't informed.

According to Paullette Cranick she or the family paid the fees multiple times before and that it was an oversight that they missed out this time around FWIW. According to this article it also mentions that the firefighters have come to the rescue of those who didn't pay the fee in rural areas as well, somewhat setting a precedent.

Seriously?

The ability to respond does not mean the responsibility to respond when it comes to firefighting. You don't pay? Sorry, you're not our responsibility and you sure as hell don't get the opportunity to sue us for damages your insurance won't cover.

We're not talking about doctors or law enforcement officers here. They're not required to respond to a situation they have no jurisdiction over.

In fact, just the opposite. They're obligated to stay the hell out of the way unless someone's life is in danger.
Which it wasn't, so...sucks for Cranick.

Understandable but unethical.

Again:
There is no bloody ethical standpoint here. At all.

Cranick called them, said his property was on fire.
The 911 operator asked, as legally required to, "Is anyone in danger, or anyone still inside the property?".
Cranick answered no.
Thus: no ethical obligation.

Unethical: Being the only ones in proximity able to fight fires yet choosing not to in order to make a point about paying $75 even though they would've done so. Such payment the family's paid multiple times before and were unaware that they failed to make this year's payment and also unaware that the firefighters would refuse to fight the fire completely even though firefighters have done so before.

Where did you get that bit about the details surrounding the 911 call? From what I've read it was the fire department refusing to respond due to payment, not anything relating about anyone still in the property which three pets were. Also having one's house in flames seems to constitute as danger for the people nearby.

What distress? Cranick couldn't even be bothered to get his own pets out of the place, so clearly he wasn't that distressed other than his house burning.
Property damage?
Big friggin' whoop. You've got homeowner's insurance, unless you were too cheap to shell out for that too.

Distress: Fighting a fire for hours with a garden house in front of family members including a grandson and losing the household and possessions, three dogs, a cat, and endangering the family and the neighborhood seems like it fits the bill especially since the firefighters arrived at the neighbor's house and watched Cranick's burn.

Where did you get the part you wrote about "Cranick couldn't even be bothered to get his own pets out of his place, so clearly he wasn't that distressed"? From the articles I've read it says Gene Cranick's a grandfather and with that it can be inferred he's of older age which doesn't help when it comes to being an untrained and ill-equipped amateur firefighter/rescuer.

Pretty crappy situation all around, I find myself in agreement with the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold Schatisberger:

The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go.

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/firefighters_refuse_to_put_out_fire_for_homeowner_who_didnt_pay_fee_1209873525127

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.

Cane wrote:

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.

Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...

I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes.
****The don't have the taxing authority to do so. Its ETJ. Again, before passing judgement on us yokels it helps to understand the issue. As noted I imagine what will happen is the teonwhip will just quit serving the ETJ-which means everyone out there is screwed thanks to Captain Numbnuts.

There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.
****We shall have to risk your impatience.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.

Well rumors around here are that Aussies have a tendency to steal aboriginal babies away from their parents so you can raise up all proper. Is that true or did you quit doing that?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cane wrote:

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.

Likewise but this is a wargaming forum so I suppose one should expect such an Imperial-esque mindset

Cane wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cane wrote:

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.

Likewise but this is a wargaming forum so I suppose one should expect such an Imperial-esque mindset

And you live in San Antonio? You have to be a foreigner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.

Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...

I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.

Cane wrote:




Whatever happened to southern hospitality and helping out neighbors?

Thats the women (unless you cross them of course). The men are the angry marines version of the South.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cane wrote:

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation all around and the system should probably be changed to confer it like normal taxes. There are a range of issues with this, but I have no patience for those that are of the "feth him" opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

It's called independence and not caring much for leeches.

Home of the Free, Land of the Brave and rararar...

I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.

And just why should the Fire Deparment help someone who chose not to pay for their services? He chose to do that. That was his decision.

End of story.