The Glade 4.0

And as I pointed out, a man fighting a house fire with a garden hose is in danger. Walls collapse, etc.

That's fine, folks should be able to choose whether they risk their life for mere property. I'm good with that, and I'd not criticize them no matter their choice.

Too bad you're not so inclined.

If I were that fire dept, I wouldn't come around his house asking for donations to the fireman's fund.

And as I pointed out, a man fighting a house fire with a garden hose is in danger. Walls collapse, etc.

But, whatever. I'm sure the guy has learned his lesson, as well as a whole bunch of lessons you folks are unaware of and probably don't care about. If I were that fire dept, I wouldn't come around his house asking for donations to the fireman's fund.

I am so inclined. I am also inclined to criticize trained professionals who would stand around with their hands in their pockets while an untrained man risks his life doing the very thing the professionals were trained to do.

http://wthrockmorton.com/2010/10/11/the-tennessee-house-fire-the-tales-of-good-and-bad-samaritans/

Another link to be unread.

I admit, I did not realize the Cranicks were in their upper 60's, where memory can be dicey, I was aware that they had paid the fee in years past, though sometimes late.

When you folks hit your upper 60's, I hope you retain your faculties, so you don't forget to pay some important fee.

Unfortunately there have been a number of court decisions that have prevented fire departments from recouping any costs in such cases.

In all previous situations, the fire department in question did put out the fire. But when they presented a bill, were told to go whistle for the money, and the courts backed that up. The fire department was told that next time, they should let the fire burn.

So, for the first time, they did.

There’s history here, and it’s not a matter of forgetfulness, but someone making a deliberate decision not to pay. Why should they? The county they’re in decided not to raise taxes by 1.8% to pay the neighbouring county to provide fire services, to leave it up to individual residents to decide to be covered or not. They figured that the other county would put out the fire anyway, no need to pay.

Do we condemn the New York Fire Department for not saving this property? Or the LA one? So why expect another county to do it?

But yes, they should have put out the fire if they were on the spot, legalities be damned. Be they NY, LA, or whoever. Just remember – they could be sued for any damage they did to the house while doing that. That’s happened too, with such unauthorised intervention in the past.

I have to blame, not the firefighters, but all those responsible in the past for putting them in this invidious legal situation.

You're kidding me right? My parents and nearly my entire family are in their mid to upper 60's. They pay their bills just fine. Excuses, excuses. We're becoming a society of people who don't want to accept responsibility for any decisions we make. This is a sad commentary on our society.

Not to mention, my understanding is they never felt it worth their while to pay the fee. I'm paraphrasing from the original article, but I believe it was said that he thought the fire department would respond whether they paid or not.

You're kidding me, right? Just because YOUR family doesn't have memory issues in the upper 60's, that means everyone doesn't? Alzheimer's, senility, and dementia varies from person to person. But thanks, anyway, for the comment.

Farther, you've filled your posts with anecdotes, so criticizing others for their anecdotes seems disingenuous.

You're kidding me, right? Just because YOUR family doesn't have memory issues in the upper 60's, that means everyone doesn't? Alzheimer's, senility, and dementia varies from person to person. But thanks, anyway, for the comment.

Show evidence that there was any sort of Dementia present in this case. The burden of proof is on you. Just because it "can be" spotty doesn't mean it is.

Nope. I'm done.

If folks are ok with an old man's house burning down and his dogs dying inside while the fire dept. stands around with their hands in their pockets because he forgot/didn't pay $75, who am I to argue with you?

It'd be nice if karma turned out to be a real ***** this time around, though.

Apparently you're a repetitive ******* who just uses broken-record tactics to continue ignoring inconvenient factors and not respond to points brought against your simplistic viewpoint... since you asked.

Nope. I'm done.

I don't think that means what you think it does.

So no, you didn't bring up any points against my viewpoint, you agreed with my viewpoint, using some pitiful excuses to try to justify your hard-heartedness.

Nope. I'm done.... who am I to argue with you?

I think I see your problem.

You use meanings for words that are different than others have for them.

Being "done" means that you're finished.

This:

isn't being finished. It's a continuation of the argument and isn't being done at all.See? You imply you're not going to argue anymore, yet continue.

Nope, not done. In fact, I'm thinking you have a lot of "not done" left in you.

I don't see how most folks here define compassion that way. I see folks, myself included, compassionate towards the principals that contribute the most to society, and I also see folks that refuse to feel compassionate towards those that refuse to contribute to their own protection, but I don't see any here - other than yourself - who insist that "compassion" is defined as "Letting an old man's house burn down while the fire dept. stands around with their hands in their pockets".

You're the only one I see doing that, and you continue doing so after a claim of cessation.

I think I'm doing you a favor when I choose to consider what you're doing as a misunderstanding.

You brought no points against my viewpoint, and it says a lot that you apparently think you did. All you did is agree with my read of the situation - that folks think it's ok for an old man's house to burn down while the fire dept. stood around with their hands in their pockets because he didn't pay the $75 - and then give excuses for why you think it's ok. Excuses I reject, and I explained why. In an emergency situation, you deal with the emergency first, then deal with any other issues. Then it was argued that it wasn't an emergency, which simple logic refutes, because I can guarantee you that if it was YOUR house on fire and you called the fire dept., you wouldn't want to hear this:

"Is there anyone inside? No? Then we're gonna finish watching this movie that just started and have dinner, and we'll be there in about 3 hours."

No, you'd want them there NOW, so go blow that smoke somewhere else. A man's house on fire is an emergency situation.

So no, you didn't bring up any points against my viewpoint, you agreed with my viewpoint, using some pitiful excuses to try to justify your hard-heartedness.