The VFD doesn't deserve the $75.00?!? ...

[ZenKitty]

What the heck were they thinking other than "it won't happen to me so I'll save a few bucks...screw the local VFD".

Signed,

A cowgirl that has lived in the country her entire life knowing that our selfless volunteer firefighters have our backs. I gladly pay my $110.00 every year (plus a bit more at the annual open house/fund raiser). These are young men and women that put themselves in harms way protecting life...worth the $75/$110??? Hell yes!! and I think Oreo agrees.

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[aquart]

1. Well, this fire department let the kitty burn.

And that makes them worth exactly nothing.

[NanceGreggs]

2. Perfectly stated ...

:thumbsup:

[ZenKitty]

3. hyperbole at its lowest. shame on you :( n/t

[aquart]

8. What part was hyperbole? Did the animals not burn?

[NanceGreggs]

10. "What the heck were they thinking other than ...

... 'it won't happen to me so I'll save a few bucks...screw the local VFD'."

You make assumptions about what total strangers were "thinking", and then ascribe a desire on their part to "screw the VFD" - and you tell someone else that they should be ashamed of themself?

That is truly rich ...

[ZenKitty]

28. and your assumptions are?

:)

[NanceGreggs]

31. I haven't made any ...

... which is why I'm not posting about what someone was probably thinking, and what they were probably trying to get away with, and going from there as though those assumptions were fact.

[Forkboy]

56. Yeah, no shame in letting a house burn down over $75

[HughMoran]

79. No hyperbole - fact.

[petronius]

5. If my house was on fire, with my cat inside, I'd be in there myself to save him or die trying

Complaining that someone else didn't is worth exactly nothing...

[ZenKitty]

7. Me too! n/t

[uppityperson]

9. Not me. If my child were, they'd have to hold me back. But I'd not die for my cat

I would try as hard as I could to save them all, but not to the point of sacrificing myself.

[petronius]

13. The dying part would be accidental, due to an irrational overestimation of my own abilities

I don't really believe it would come to that... :)

[sandnsea]

14. A, they're trained; B, they wouldn't let you

I can't decide whether I'm more shocked or more revolted by these kinds of responses.

[aquart]

63. Oh, I'm not shocked. I'm revolted.

[Lucian]

16. They didn't do their job.

They ARE worth exactly nothing.

[ZenKitty]

19. Oh that's an awesome reply. *hurl*

[Lucian]

20. With the way you're acting...

I think you should be posting at FR instead of here.

Your attitude doesn't work with a party that cares about people.

[Hannah Bell]

75. Their job is to protect the town that funds them (pop 2500), not the county that doesn't (pop 32K)

& that doesn't have any fire service of its own & has shot down every proposal to establish one or pay the cities as a body for the cost of the services they will use.

[TheMadMonk]

33. Your animal's life is worth more than mine to you. OK we have that clear.

The service not only was not paid for, but deliberately opted out from. Whether or not said service was paid for, you very socialistically demand "fair share" on humanitarian grounds.

Given just how fucked up in the collective head your nation is, I would not put it past the medical insurers for the VFD disallowing any claims that arose from fighting fires on properties not covered by the subsidy, on the grounds that they should not have been there in the first place.

[aquart]

62. Were you left in a burning building? I'm so sorry!

Are your injuries very serious?

[TheMadMonk]

97. No. Simply just a tad irate that someone (a lot of someones) expect...

...(and in a couple of case at least, demand) firefighters put their lives on the line for another's animals.

However I am not surprised. Surveys, (not to mention simple observation) have shown that Americans tend to value their pets more highly than they do their fellow man.

[Hannah Bell]

78. yep. painting this as some humanitarian failure is bs. first, the city has stated it *will* go in

where human lives are at stake, even though the county has refused to fund fire service & freeloaded off its municipalities for years.

south fulton population: 2500
county population: 32K

county median income = higher than city median income.

no lives were at stake. & sorry, if the guy won't pay for fire service & lets his grandson burn trash in the yard, & can't save his own damn pets in the two hours it takes for the fire to reach the house, he either wasn't supervising the burn or didn't give a damn.

[GoCubsGo]

50. And, a couple of doggies, too. n/t

[Tesha]

69. Apparently, so did the property owner. (NT)

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It wasn't a VFD, but the city department

after that, what you said.

As a former EMS worker I sat at home IN SHOCK watching those fire fighters sitting in the cab...

Trust me, it shocked me to no end. Moral center, what moral center?

I got to peer tonight into an alien, foreign country... one that I do not comprehend.

[daleanime]

6. They showed just how much....

they are worth.:eyes:

[ZenKitty]

12. "They" just showed how much who/whom is worth? n/t

[daleanime]

17. Huh?

What was the question again?:hi:

[sandnsea]

11. Some folks really don't have an extra $75

It's not about how much firefighters are worth or appreciated - it's about community and being your brother's keeper. I can't believe anybody in this country would let someone's house burn down, and that anyone calling themself a liberal or a Democrat would think that's okay.

There's a whole lot more wrong with this country than just Fox News and freeperville.

[ZenKitty]

18. Please do some research on the particulars...

this was not a case of someone lacking the $. This was a choice on the homeowner's part to gamble. I am a huge proponent of VFD's but I ask you this..if we all insist that our brother keeps us who will take care of our brother when he is in need? Meanwhile those that are truly in need are ignored and underfunded!!

This was a case of pure selfishness. Period.

[NanceGreggs]

26. Of course, that makes perfect sense!

What homeowner wouldn't look at the choice between a $75 fee to keep his home safe and pocketing the money, so he can "gamble" on the possibility of losing the house entirely?

Yep, makes perfect sense ...

:sarcasm:

[ZenKitty]

29. exactly...they played the lottery and lost. To me?

...makes no sense at all. I would never gamble the security of my family, my home, my security like that. EVER!

[NanceGreggs]

34. Exactly my point.

You wouldn't.

I wouldn't.

I'd dare say that most people wouldn't.

And yet you have come to the conclusion that this homeowner did exactly that - with no facts to support that conclusion, and despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense for him to have done so.

[Fumesucker]

36. The homeowner stated that he thought the FD would put out the fire anyway.. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

84. after being notified by mail and by phone. in another account, he says he "forgot".

story keeps changing.

[ZenKitty]

39. I came to the conclusion after reading the homeowners own words!!

I am not a fill in the blank kind of person whatsoever! Facts. I deal in facts. Some emotions now and again :)

[NanceGreggs]

40. Did he actually say ...

"I was thinking 'it won't happen to me so I'll save a few bucks...screw the local VFD'?"

Or, "Hell, I figured I'd pocket the whopping seventy-five bucks and just take a gamble that my house wouldn't burn down!"

Or did he not have to actually say those things, because you know what "facts" are inside of people's minds?

Here's a fact for you: A bunch of firefighters let a house burn to the ground, with three pets inside of it no less. Whether someone did or didn't cough up some dough
doesn't change the fact that their behaviour was reprehensible.

[JustAmused]

48. Wow

You really did not read this did you? First of all, that particular city is in two states, TN and KY. The people refused to pay taxes to support a fire department, and then this guy refused to pay an individual fee for the service. Tell you what. Where do you live? Next time I need to call for an emergency, I will YOUR local agency and have them come here to deal with it. I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying your taxes to take care of my needs way down here.

[NanceGreggs]

64. Wow

I did read it. What I read was that firefighters, trained to handle the situation and with their equipment at-the-ready, stood by and watched a home burn to the ground rather than offer their assistance.

And their refusal to assist was based on money - seventy-five dollars, to be exact.

I wonder how morally bankrupt one has to be to do that, or to justify the actions of those who did.

I'll tell you what: No doubt my tax dollars pay for services to others every day. And that doesn't bother me one iota.

Apparently such a concept bothers you - a lot.

[Hannah Bell]

87. their refusal was based on the previous history of their town's (pop 2500) fire dept

having 75% of its calls coming from county residents outside the city who didn't pay to support the fd -- even though the county residents have a higher median income than the city residents.

the county has 32K people and no fire service, because they've repeatedly shot down any proposals to fund a volunteer department.

when the cities used to fight their fires and then charge them after they were out, more than half never paid up.

so i guess your proposition is the city should perform this "charity" until it goes bankrupt, at which time no one would get fire service.

[NanceGreggs]

98. My only "proposition" here ...

... is that when firefighters are already on the scene (as they were in this case), fully equipped to do their job, there is no excuse for standing by and doing nothing. This wasn't a call they didn't respond to - they were right there.

I have steered clear of weighing-in on the legalities here, or what's been done in the past, or what might be done in the future. That's for the citizens and the bureaucracy involved to hash out among themselves.

But I repeat, firefighters standing idly by, watching a house burn to the ground when they could have prevented that catastrophe, is indefensible. And I am appalled at comments that amount to, "So the guy lost everything, including three defenseless animals, but he deserved it."

Anyone who thinks that losing one's home and all of one's possessions is a "just reward" for not paying a $75 fee has, IMHO, a very skewed sense of proportion.

[Bluerthanblue]

90. well said.

I agree with you Nance-

:hi:

[Cirque du So-What]

46. 'I am not a fill in the blank kind of person whatsoever!'

*What the heck were they thinking other than "it won't happen to me so I'll save a few bucks...screw the local VFD".* - your words

Irony. I'll need a sharper knife to cut it.

[Hannah Bell]

83. there are facts to support that conclusion. apparently you haven't read up.

[KittyWampus]

66. that's exactly what happened. I doubt anyone attacking the fire personnel have family who works

or volunteers as a fire person.

[NanceGreggs]

99. Well, in actual fact ...

... there were quite a few number of threads on this topic last night, and several firefighters (volunteer and salaried) posted their disgust with how the firefighters reacted in this case.

[Hannah Bell]

82. it did to the homeowner, because that's what he did. that's the teabagger mentality.

he gets farm subsidies in two states. he carries a homeowners policy he says will rebuild his house.

[napi21]

37. You're wrong. He was on Keith's show tonight and said "I forgot about

the bill". Can you honestly say you never forgot any bills in your life? I know I can't!

[ZenKitty]

44. I have definitely misplaced/forgotten bills. But I have never

done so with bills that having gone unpaid/late result in grave consequences. Some are more important than others. Funny how that works.

I'm off to the barn to tuck in horses. Wow...up way too late for me. I wish you all well and thank you for not chewing me up too badly. lol

Goodness knows I will be looking in to Mr. Cranick's situation tomorrow to see how I can help. Beyond learning from the situation, that's all we can do at this point.

Good night.

[SoCalDem]

47. and his son had had a fire the year before..

One would think that a recent fire in the family would have jogged their memory,. That said, it should still be a part of everyone's tax bill,,,and not left for people to decide to pay or not pay.. What if a landlord "forgot", and the tenant had a fire?

[Hannah Bell]

89. do you have a link for that? i think it's a very telling point. i'd think it would jog their

memory as well.

especially since county residents were notified by mail & by phone also.

[SoCalDem]

94. He said it on the Countdown interview..

Said they had the fire out by the time the firemen came,,but they did come to the fire even though the son had not paid the $75

[Hannah Bell]

96. i believe the policy change was 2009 or thereabouts.

[KittyWampus]

67. He was reminded. He's lying.

[Hannah Bell]

88. he was notified in writing, then by phone. he's had different stories,

and is reported also as saying he thought they'd come whether or not he paid. that was the first story. the "forgetting" was the second story.

[WillParkinson]

43. This was a case of pure selfishness. Period.

Seems that can be said about both sides.

[TheMadMonk]

35. If you are in such financial straight, you should be able to negotiate something.

Payment in kind, welfare subsidy, something. If you can't, then can't you see the problem is not a fire department's rules lawyering, it's an attitude that pervades your entire bloody nation.

[ZenKitty]

41. I would bet my last $ that he could have reached out

to them and worked out a payment plan. It wasn't important to him until it became IMPORTANT. *sigh* Obligations are just that! Good gravy y'all are making me out to be the devil...I'm not. It's a nasty situation all the way around. Is it wrong to expect folks to prioritize their obligations?

What I do know to be wrong is to resort to physical violence in protest of this situation. Punching out the fire chief will surely resort in a fine more than $75.

[seabeyond]

54. i has not said once he didnt have money. his quote was i thought the fire dept would come out anyway

even if i didnt pay

once on olberman, .... i forgot to pay

he didnt pay... he took the risk

[Hannah Bell]

81. no, it's about cheap libertarians. first, this guy gets farm subsidies in two states, so i think he

could probably come up with $6 a month.

second, the county could assess a fire tax by property value or income that would subsidize its low-income residents. it chose not to, instead opting to let individuals contract with the city for a flat fee.

it chose not to set up its own volunteer fire department -- twice -- even though federal funds were available to help with the cost.

and when the cities were coming out to calls even though the county wasn't paying, & then charging the cost of fighting the fire, more than half the county residents never paid.

this in a county with a higher median income than the city.

[Lucian]

15. Maybe that family didn't have the extra $75?

And hell, what the fuck do taxes pay for? Why pay an extra fee?

The whole story is bullshit, and every one of those fire fighters should lose their job, even if they are volunteers. And the mayor should be forced to step down also.

[ZenKitty]

21. Quite obvious that you have no clue as to how...

it works in the counties/unincorporated areas. Seems as if the "victim" in this story didn't either.

[Fumesucker]

23. You really ought to learn a bit about the situation before going off half cocked..

The city and the county aren't even in the same state.. North Fulton is in Kentucky and the county in question is in Tennessee.

[ZenKitty]

24. ?? lol

[Fumesucker]

38. ...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=obion+county+tn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+fulton+tn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

[ZenKitty]

42. I get the geography...

Not sure what your point is. This case involves a county subscription fire department. Opt in vs opt out. Plain and simple. Pay to participate or don't and join the ranks of the self insured. That's it.

[Th1onein]

51. So what? They sat there and let the house burn down with the animals in it!

This is horrible behavior. It's something most people wouldn't do, whether he had paid the fee or not. Horrible. They ought to be ashamed of themselves as human beings.

[Hannah Bell]

92. it took a lot of history of the county not paying when the majority of fire calls came from its

its residents to get to this point.

the city used to fight their fires for free, then charge when they were out. more than half the people never paid.

the county refused to fund a volunteer fire department, and voted 19-1 to let individuals "choose" whether to contract with the city for fire service -- or not.

the county residents have a higher median income than the city residents. the city has a population of 2500, the county 32K. 75% of the city's fire calls came from people who weren't paying for the service.

what do you think they should have done considering this long history of freeloading?

if the unincorporated areas there are like they are here, they're libertarian central.

we have similar conflicts between well-off folks outside the city not funding city services, but wanting to use them.

they live in unincorparated areas because they can have their little ranches & avoid taxes.

[JustAmused]

49. Another non-reader

Please pay attention. The fire department is from a city that he does not live in. His county refused an arrangement with the city. Then he as an individual refused the individual service.

[Hannah Bell]

91. he didn't pay taxes to the city. he lived in an unincorporated area. it had a higher

median income than the city.

it was not an *extra* fee. it was a fee to pay the cost of fighting fires outside the city of 2500 people that taxed themselves to fight fires *in the city* -- not outside the city in the *county* (pop 32K).

the man gets farm subsidies in two states. he's no impoverished hick. he has a homeowners policy he says will rebuild the house.

county residents have no fire service because they refuse to tax themselves to provide one & prefer to free-ride off the cities.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

22. What Would Your Avatar Do?

Hello, Dalai.

[JVS]

30. Meditate on how to be content without the house.

[JI7]

25. If they are Selfless why didn't they put out the Fire ?

[Bonobo]

27. Who the fuck said they didn't "Cowgirl"?

And what the fuck does that have to do with "firefighters" letting a house burn down?


Signed, a volunteer firefighter who would put out your house fire for free.

[ZenKitty]

32. Nice n/t

[ZenKitty]

45. PS somebody please link me to info about...

animals dying in this fire. I cannot find any info about that at all.

[hayu_lol]

52. There were several threads yesterday on this situation...

most of the information is available on those threads. Many posters on this one are coming down hard on the fire department who were there to protect a subscriber...a neighbor of this guy who had paid the subscription fee.

This homeowner(who started the fire in the first place)declined to pay the $75 annual fee for the services of a city fire department. This fire department offered the service and sent out letters, made follow up phone calls, and generally tried to get the residents of a rural area to sign up for fire service protection. There was NO fire department where this fire took place. The people of the city whose fire department offered rural service paid property taxes to support the fire department...the county where this homeowner lived paid NO Taxes for fire service. On top of all this, the fire department was from across the state line.

This property owner opted out of the program to save a few bucks. Wonder if he had fire insurance coverage and if his insurance carrier knew that he had opted out? His rates would have been very high.

You cannot fault the fire department who did stop the fire from spreading to a neighboring property(a subscriber to the service).

[RandomThoughts]

55. It is concept of personal responsibility versus nanny state.

That example is should taxes do for people, or should there own choice of actions do for people.

What that example does not address, is the imbalance in income distribution, that might have stopped him from buying that insurance, not by his failing but by a failing of the system, so a system like a government should exist to collect progressively then pay for all fire protection.


You can make that argument in a rich neighborhood only, or a society where everyone can afford that coverage equally.


And that is the entire Republican argument on that entire issue. If they don't have money they should lose out.

Don't make laws to remove choices, unless those choices were already removed by an unequal money system, then it is paying for that protection from those with much money they never earned, by having a base line standard and social services for people.


In that context, the mandatory seat belt law I don't agree with, but the law to put seat belts in cars I do agree with.

[TheMadMonk]

61. Re: mandatory seatbelts. I don't give a crap if you choose to kill yourself.

The biggest problems arise when you just barely fail to do so. Insuring you does cost others in the form of higher premiums, and your long term care also drives those premiums up, not to mention the huge financial, physical and emotional burden you place on your family.

As for the rest, whether he chose not to or forgot, he didn't pay for the service and suffered the consequences. I don't get sympathy from my insurance company if my home is burgled or burns down and I forgot to make payment.

Yes, taxes or mandatory levies should have covered it, and would have almost anywhere else in the world. This is the price of American individualism, the same sort of individualism that has you railing against seatbelt laws.

[RandomThoughts]

100. I would not kill myself. Nor do I think anyone should.

My point is the seat-belt law is a slippery slope. To explain the seat-belt law. It is about everyone having the same opportunity to choose, and at that time, then the choice can be theirs. So seat-belts should be in every car, as should everyone have the excess money to buy health care and fire insurance. Until those things are around, health care and fire insurance should be paid by progressive taxation.

For instance, if everyone had the same opportunity to buy fire insurance, the same excess of wealth for example, then such a concept of people having fire insurance only if they chose to buy it makes sense, but since some people have to pick between food and beer, or fire insurance, the system itself is what gets them to not buy fire insurance, not a personal responsibility.

It is how a rich person can say it is about personal responsibility, when the rich really have very little personal responsibility since the choice to spend with much excess wealth is not that hard of a choice and shows no responsibility. The rich that do show personal responsibility realize that and use what they have to try and help people.



You are correct about the concept of the seat belt saving money in emergency rooms, or when that debate was occurring, the comment was made should a doctor be forced to see terrible injuries because people are allowed to choose not wearing a seat belt.


I think people should wear seat belts, so the opportunity to do that should be available, and the education to do so should also occur, however from the argument of mandatory seat belts, you could also slip into legislating every activity. Why not making surfing illegal, or eating fatty foods, or even leaving someone house, since each of those adds some element of risk in living. Even the laws of covering women with Burka really are about taking away choice because some think men can not see a women and control their actions and thoughts. Same way with taking away bars, because some cant choose to behave when having a few drinks. Or the concept of the movie footloose, where some might get amorous when dancing. It is all the same concept, that is what is important to understand.

I actually think the seat-belt laws do make some sense in society, however the principle of the law I disagree with. I am able to see the compromise of a common sense law that is a minor infringement of choice, for societal good, but also know it can lead to areas of lack of choice in many things, as can limitations of the amount of money people have.

Or maybe the no seat-belt law is just a comment on spankings, and ideas of discipline :) LOL That is how personal responsibility people think of it, but I agree massive damage like loss of a house, or damage from high speed car ejection, should not be the way a person is taught something, it is a bit extream, but as the laws are made, the concepts behind the laws should be known to avoid the concept from going beyond common sense safety, and into to much security.

[seabeyond]

53. can we call people all kinds of names that unrec this post supporting firefighters that put life at

risk?

i hear people making all kinds of comments, untrue comments, hyperbole comments, name calling pissed at the fire dept. all these self righteous people that unrec support of firefighters.... do we now getta call you names. be disgusted?

[Forkboy]

58. Call me anything that makes you happy, but these particular firefighters were shitheels.

So live it up, call me anything that makes your little heart go pitter patter. The disgust of anyone who supports these men's action is a burden I'm quite sure I can bear.

I wasn't planning on the unreccing the OP, but I will now. Fire away, I need a good laugh this morning.

[caraher]

57. Why this guy didn't pay $75 is not the issue

The point of this story is that it's a glimpse of the vision of the future we'll see if the RW loonies continue to get their way in demolishing tax-supported government services in favor of a crazy quilt of pay-for-services schemes.

Piling on this poor guy, whether short-sightly "greedy" or simply forgetful, who lost his house only plays into their hands. If my neighbor's house is on fire I want it put out whether or not he paid the $75 because that's how a civilized society works, and the system in place to pay for that service shouldn't be based on relying on individuals to make wise decisions with their money. Fire protection should be on the same basis as health care (which is also not on the government-paid - or at least nonprofit - footing it ought to be).

[Forkboy]

59. These particular firefighters were douchebags. Fuck 'em.

[olegramps]

60. The real moral obligation lies with the homeowner.

He totally neglected his duty to insure the safety of his family and pets. He not only endangered his own family but the entire community. His own words in which he stated that he thought they would respond even if he didn't pay are damning. No one take any delight in what has happened. But it was totally preventable. I can't help from wondering if he had insurance on the home and if he did would the company pay when he neglected to provide for fire protection. It would seem reasonable to me that the insurance company would make this an obligation.

[TK421]

65. Would it have killed them to put out this stinkin fire? Christ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Maybe.

That's kind of the risk of firefighting, you know.

[TK421]

77. Not what I meant at all, and yeah I'm aware of the risk

[TexasObserver]

68. Deserves to get paid has nothing to do with it.

You may only see two possible outcomes, but that's because it's the only way you can justify your position.

[Rex]

70. The house and animals didn't deserve to be saved over $75?

Just asking.

[WCIL]

72. Here is my question

I saw him on Keith's show last night, and he said that when the fire department got there he offered to pay, but they still wouldn't put out the fire. What was the point of that, just to teach him and others like him a lesson? Sad.

[Rex]

74. Yes a lesson, even if it meant death and serious injury to others.

And a lot of people here will defend their (FD) decision. Scary ain't it?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

95. No, but if your car catches fire, you can expect the fire department to come put it out.

And do so without regard to whether you're a citizen of their town who has paid $75.

Insurance and fire fighting are two very different parts of society. When you can understand the difference, you'll understand why your attempted analogies fail miserably.

[derby378]

73. I have a very simple reponse to this...

http://www.thecorporation.com

[Bluerthanblue]

76. as someone who was married to a volunteer firefighter, who went

on to also become a professional firefighter/emt, I can tell you that any Firefighter I've had the pleasure to know and work with would NOT let the fact that a person didn't pay the $75 fee get in the way of doing what is right- and that includes fighting to save the home of a fellow human being, regardless of whether you "like" them, or how supportive of the local VFD they are or AREN'T.

If indeed the firefighters were threatened by their superiors about responding to the call for help, the people who refused to allow any firefighters to respond should be held responsible. imo.

Volunteers don't do what they do because of the money, and that $75 fee didn't keep them from being ABLE to respond, as they did for the neighbor who had paid the fee- it was the bureaucrats who held them back,
That sucks.

[ZenKitty]

80. Well, after laying awake all night thinking about this...

I come with hat in hand to let you all know that I've reversed my opinion on this situation. Thank you all for the insightful thread. I'll go back in to lurk mode now. :hide:

[Rex]

85. No one is saying they don't deserve the $75.

Just that it would have been better to ignore the personal issues at hand and just put out the fire to protect others if nothing else. Don't lurk too much. :hi:

[mmonk]

93. I thought it was the town's fire department.

Anyway, I don't have the ice cold coolness it would take to let someone's home, belongings and pets be destroyed while I was in the neighborhood. The man said he would pay what it took. BTW, we have a fire fighter in my family (my cousins son).

[Dawson Leery]

101. When the South Fulton Fire Department hands around the boot, give them the finger.

The behavior of the South Fulton TN fire department was ugly!
:puke:

[lynne]

102. VFD? They were volunteers?? That's even WORSE!

I thought they were on-the-payroll firemen who might lose their jobs if they defied the orders of a superior and went ahead and fought the fire. If they were volunteers then its even worse. What do they have to lose by helping someone? They sure aren't going to get fired.

[dsc]

103. that firefighter

is nuclear hot.