• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

$75 or we'll let your house burn down

#181
Floyd Eye said:
I said it earlier, but it's worth repeating. This is not the first time these people have had a fire, caused by their own stupidity and they didn't pay the bill then. The fire department put the fire out that time. Obviously if they continued to put these people's fires out for free, nobody else would pay either. Guess what, no funds, no fire department.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems I wasn't the only one thinking there was more to this story.
 
#182
Wow. This sort of thing is still happening?.. :scowl:

...In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths..."
 
#183
MIJ-VI said:
Wow. This sort of thing is still happening?.. :scowl:

...In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths..."
Click to expand...

Did you read the thread?
 
#184
MIJ-VI said:
Wow. This sort of thing is still happening?.. :scowl:

...In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths..."
Click to expand...

If homes are close together then all fires must be put out. If only one house will burn, we have a different dynamic.
 
#185
Floyd Eye said:
I said it earlier, but it's worth repeating. This is not the first time these people have had a fire, caused by their own stupidity and they didn't pay the bill then. The fire department put the fire out that time. Obviously if they continued to put these people's fires out for free, nobody else would pay either. Guess what, no funds, no fire department.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is correct? That the people concerned have had a fire extinguished before this latest event?
 
#186
sloasdaylight said:
K, we have I think a mis understanding. I was talking about if only the equal signs worked. They don't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was more of an idealistic view of that is how it should work and how it would be better like that.


Jim Campbell said:
do you walk past your friends and neighbors and tell them tough noogies.....
Click to expand...

No, and if I had driven past this guys house i'd have stopped to help him out. If I was answering the phone at the fire station that day id have driven the truck out and put the fire out myself if I had to.

However I was not, and if i'd been enduring people complaining about the fee and being ungrateful for the past 20 years I may well not have been feeling quite so charitable that day either.

Im not saying they shouldn't have helped him. I am saying I can see why they didn't and it was a fair call. It would have been nicer to help him, but that doesn't mean they are a disgrace for not doing it.

One could argue it was a sacrifice for the greater good, now everyone will pay their fee and the fire department will be able to save more people, a "lesser of two evils" so to speak. Doesn't mean its right, its a tricky situation and not as clear cut as you would like it to be.
 
#187
Skitch it! said:
Sorry, this is correct? That the people concerned have had a fire extinguished before this latest event?
Click to expand...

Yes it's correct. They previously had a fire caused by failure to clean their chimney, which the fire department extinguished, even though they refused to pay the $75 then too. They have a history of being dumbasses and a history of refusing to pay the $75. All their neighbors and townsmen pay the $75, but they should get a pass?
 
#189
Floyd Eye said:
Yes it's correct. They previously had a fire caused by failure to clean their chimney, which the fire department extinguished, even though they refused to pay the $75 then too. They have a history of being dumbasses and a history of refusing to pay the $75. All their neighbors and townsmen pay the $75, but they should get a pass?
Click to expand...

Suddenly the situation becomes very clear cut.


If he caught me on a good day I may have given him one more chance.. but more than likely id have told him to get a bucket.
 
#190
Floyd Eye said:
Yes it's correct. They previously had a fire caused by failure to clean their chimney, which the fire department extinguished, even though they refused to pay the $75 then too. They have a history of being dumbasses and a history of refusing to pay the $75. All their neighbors and townsmen pay the $75, but they should get a pass?
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that this guy may have locked those animals in to get his house put out after risking it for 18 years, if this is indeed the case, which I very much hope is not by the way, why should a firefighter put himself at risk in anyway for this man's property, he brought this on himself imo.
 
#193
Their insurance company, though it is their right to, has stated that they will not deny the claim or lower the payout due to the people's refusal to pay for fire protection. So, these people are getting paid, yet they decided it would be a good idea to attempt to demonize the fire department in the media. Only problem is now the whole world knows these people are ignorant, greedy animal killers.:hmm:
 
#195
Floyd Eye said:
Their insurance company, though it is their right to, has stated that they will not deny the claim or lower the payout due to the people's refusal to pay for fire protection. So, these people are getting paid, yet they decided it would be a good idea to attempt to demonize the fire department in the media. Only problem is now the whole world knows these people are ignorant, greedy animal killers.:hmm:
Click to expand...

From what I've gathered from the sources I've read on this, the people responsible didn't really demonize the firefighters, it was more the media demonizing the firefighters cause it makes a good story.
 
#196
Floyd Eye said:
Their insurance company, though it is their right to, has stated that they will not deny the claim or lower the payout due to the people's refusal to pay for fire protection.
Click to expand...

Wow, and insurance company that pays when they don't absolutly HAVE to!!?

Where can I find me one of them :D:D

Edit: I guess its probably good PR. If they didn't go to the media they probably wouldn't get a payout either.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back