Like Tree33Likes

Thread: So tell me again what the point of this is??

  1. #76
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Thereby reinforcing yet another stereotype we libs have about hayseeds like you in backward parts of the country.

    Were you and your wife related before you got married?
    OK -now its personal -to the best of my knowledge, LA is from the North East part of the country, he just moved South to infect the country kinda like a boll weevil. Ill refrain from passing on my sterotypes of you liberals from the left coast trying to californicate the rest of us.
    ?

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    OK -now its personal -to the best of my knowledge, LA is from the North East part of the country, he just moved South to infect the country kinda like a boll weevil. Ill refrain from passing on my sterotypes of you liberals from the left coast trying to californicate the rest of us.
    Don't take it personal. Hayseeds from the backwards part of the country are from all over this country. In fact some of the biggest Hayseeds I have ever known never set a foot outside of the city they live in but you would swear they were some inbred moron from a stereotypicial location. As much as some would like to paint it as geographical it isn't, it is just a personality trait that some people can't escape, no matter where they live or where they are from.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 05-05-2013 at 11:10 AM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #78
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Don't take it personal. Hayseeds from the backwards part of the country are from all over this country. In fact some of the biggest Hayseeds I have ever known never set a foot outside of the city they live in but you would swear they were some inbred moron from a stereotypicial location. As much as some would like to paint it as geographical it isn't, it is just a personality trait that some people can't escape, no matter where they live or where they are from.
    Iwas just kidding about taking it personal,SC fire cant help his outlook, if I was sourrounded by nancy pelosi fans,Im sure I would eveuntally crack also. I really shouldnt have used the boll weevil analogy to describe la. I think a formosan termite would be more apt.
    ?

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If it applies to one arguement, it applies to another.
    How did I miss this gem?

    No, no it doesn't. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, so it absolutely does not apply to both arguments.

    You're trying to justify having junior firefighters (minors, children) on the fire scene and saying that's safe because they are being supervised by an officer or senior firefighter.

    In the same breath you're condemning me because myself, another interior trained firefighter, a trained MPO, and an interior trained firefighter conducting exterior operations, made an aggressive interior attack (safely, with a calculated risk) on a fire that was properly sized up and assessed, and you're deeming that unsafe because I didn't have your necessary set of safety values in place.

    Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, if you didn't have firefighters and officers supervising children on the fire scene, that you would have enough viable members to make more aggressive attacks? Not that it matters, because that's obviously not your mission anyway.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  5. #80
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    How did I miss this gem?

    No, no it doesn't. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, so it absolutely does not apply to both arguments.

    You're trying to justify having junior firefighters (minors, children) on the fire scene and saying that's safe because they are being supervised by an officer or senior firefighter.

    In the same breath you're condemning me because myself, another interior trained firefighter, a trained MPO, and an interior trained firefighter conducting exterior operations, made an aggressive interior attack (safely, with a calculated risk) on a fire that was properly sized up and assessed, and you're deeming that unsafe because I didn't have your necessary set of safety values in place.

    Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, if you didn't have firefighters and officers supervising children on the fire scene, that you would have enough viable members to make more aggressive attacks? Not that it matters, because that's obviously not your mission anyway.
    Both you and Fryed have stated that because nobody was hurt in your situation the attack was safe. The definition of safe seemed to be that nobody was hurt.

    Given the same criteria, I can define the utilization of trained juniors in limited roles in an active non-interior fire attack under the direct supervision of an officer or senior member in both my current combo and previous VFD as safe, as none of them were ever hurt in a firefighting role.

    If you define no injuries as safe, so will I.

    As far as the supervision comment, this would only apply to my combo department as juniors in my current VFD, which is my understaffed department, have very minimal fireground involvement. We currently have no juniors. As far as my combo department, finding enough officers or senior members to supervise them is not an issue.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #81
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Both you and Fryed have stated that because nobody was hurt in your situation the attack was safe. The definition of safe seemed to be that nobody was hurt.

    Given the same criteria, I can define the utilization of trained juniors in limited roles in an active non-interior fire attack under the direct supervision of an officer or senior member in both my current combo and previous VFD as safe, as none of them were ever hurt in a firefighting role.

    If you define no injuries as safe, so will I.

    As far as the supervision comment, this would only apply to my combo department as juniors in my current VFD, which is my understaffed department, have very minimal fireground involvement. We currently have no juniors. As far as my combo department, finding enough officers or senior members to supervise them is not an issue.
    There's two problems with your line of argument here.

    1. YOU were the one who deemed MY operation unsafe, because you didn't feel I had enough personnel on scene to justify my actions.

    2. You're still trying to compare CHILDREN to properly trained adults.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Both you and Fryed have stated that because nobody was hurt in your situation the attack was safe. The definition of safe seemed to be that nobody was hurt.

    Given the same criteria, I can define the utilization of trained juniors in limited roles in an active non-interior fire attack under the direct supervision of an officer or senior member in both my current combo and previous VFD as safe, as none of them were ever hurt in a firefighting role.

    If you define no injuries as safe, so will I.

    As far as the supervision comment, this would only apply to my combo department as juniors in my current VFD, which is my understaffed department, have very minimal fireground involvement. We currently have no juniors. As far as my combo department, finding enough officers or senior members to supervise them is not an issue.
    The difference being the people at LT Chenzo's incident were all ADULTS. None of the officers needed to take the Red Cross Babysitting course to be able to manage the firefighters under their command.

    The fact that your uber safety Bull SCHITT doesn't include keeping children off the fireground just makes you look more like a buffoon than anything I could say about your idiocy.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #83
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    There's two problems with your line of argument here.

    1. YOU were the one who deemed MY operation unsafe, because you didn't feel I had enough personnel on scene to justify my actions.

    And I feel any department that is operating interior with 4 members on scene, including my own, is not operating safely no matter how well trained their members may be, as there are no resources available on-scene if things go bad.

    The fact is you said it was safe because nobody got hurt.

    Using that same logic, I can also say that we have used juniors in a safe manner because we have never had one of them hurt on the fireground.


    2. You're still trying to compare CHILDREN to properly trained adults.
    No, I'm comparing juniors, who are at least 17, and have experience, who have completed the same basic training checklist, and have demonstrated the same competencies through live fire training, with the exception of interior fire attack, as the adult members, and are limited to backup roles on vehicle and brush fire attacks, and exterior hoselines on structural incidents, under the direct supervision of an officer or senior members.

    So they are properly trained including live fire operations.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I'm comparing juniors, who are at least 17......
    No matter how much BS you spew, they're still children.
    FyredUp and Chenzo like this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I'm comparing juniors, who are at least 17, and have experience, who have completed the same basic training checklist, and have demonstrated the same competencies through live fire training, with the exception of interior fire attack, as the adult members, and are limited to backup roles on vehicle and brush fire attacks, and exterior hoselines on structural incidents, under the direct supervision of an officer or senior members.

    So they are properly trained including live fire operations.
    I know in my state, live fire operations are explicitly prohibited for personnel under the age of 18. Maybe LA has different laws, but then again, you guys don't seem to have any issue with disregarding laws.
    Chenzo likes this.

  11. #86
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I'm comparing juniors(Children, in the eyes of the law), who are at least 17,(Children) and have experience,(Your children have experience, but not your adult members?) who have completed the same basic training checklist, and have demonstrated the same competencies through live fire training, with the exception of interior fire attack, as the adult members(Doesn't matter, still children.), and are limited to backup roles on vehicle and brush fire attacks, and exterior hoselines on structural incidents, under the direct supervision of an officer or senior members.

    So they are properly trained including live fire operations.
    So, you're children are properly trained, but your actual adult members are not? The juniors have experience, but you don't want to make interior attacks with your members because they don't have enough experience?
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. America's low point
    By DennisTheMenace in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-04-2005, 08:00 PM
  2. Low Point in High Point
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2003, 07:02 PM
  3. Need help to prove my point...
    By tgc204 in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2003, 10:55 AM
  4. need help to prove my point....
    By tgc204 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2003, 10:00 AM
  5. 3-point vs. 4-point stabilization?
    By rmoore in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-1999, 05:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register