3 ms·

No, the moral of this story is you taking a single part massively out of context. And the fire department didn't go out. So they wouldn't have known if someone'

No, the moral of this story is you taking a single part massively out of context. And the fire department didn't go out. So they wouldn't have known if someone's life was at risk. So stop you're nonsense.

LarryMullins 4y ago
> And the fire department didn't go out. Again, more misinformation! They did go out, and made sure the fire didn't spread off the property. If anybody had been imperiled, the firefighters would have helped. FFS, it's right in that article: > They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. And if the firefighters were rude to these people, it's probably because the people who lived there were a bunch of anti-social shitheads and the firefighters knew it. But the firefighters did go out anyway. Stop your nonsense.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  >Again, more misinformation! No, they went out after the neighbour phoned up because of a fire on their property. Anyone who has fully read the article will know that. So stop your nonsense. "Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee."
  - jakear 4y ago
    So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. What an entirely reasonable response to getting a service request from someone who has not established a SLA with your company. Do you personally work at a company? If so, I demand you to help me fix a problem I'm having. I haven't paid you, but that shouldn't matter. What's that? You won't help me? But you helped my competitor who did establish a contract with you in which they paid you a monthly fee in exchange for a guarantee you'd help them when the needed it. The horror. The absolute travesty. Society has failed.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      > So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. The article doesn't say that does it. They say the fire department was contacted and responded that they weren't on the list. They refused to accept any payment. And only turned up when someone who was on the list called. We have a phrase for people like you, jog on.
      - jakear 4y ago
        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim “firefighters wouldn’t come if someone’s life was in danger from a fire” is extraordinary. The evidence “firefighters didn’t come when no one’s life was in danger from a fire” isn’t. Come up with real evidence or quit bellyaching.
        that_guy_iain 4y ago
        The claim is that the firefighters didn't know if anyone's live was in danger because they didn't show up. The evidence is that they refused to show up when called and only showed up when called by someone else. Without being prescene at the scene it is not possible for a firefigther to know if someone's life is endanger or not because the person calling isn't trained to know that. The real evidence for the very basic claim is there.
        jakear 4y ago
        > Without being prescene at the scene it is not possible for a firefigther to know if someone's life is endanger or not because the person calling isn't trained to know that. Yeah... that's about the weakest argument I've heard this week. Firefighters don't have magical spidey senses to tell them whether someone is trapped in a burning building. They will go based on what the homeowner says -- it doesn't take special training to verify that 3 people live at your house and all of them are on the road with you watching it burn. Fire department certainly isn't risking life and limb to comb through an actively burning building verifying it to be empty when the homeowner themselves already said it was. >that the firefighters didn't know if anyone's live was in danger because they didn't show up. Person: Hello, my house is on fire come save it please. FireDepartment: Is anyone's life in danger? Person: No. FireDepartment: Thank you for letting me know. That's how easy it is, same conversation would happen whether or not they were on "the list".
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    There is approximately a zero percent chance the 911 operator neglected to ask if anybody was in the burning house. They didn't save the house but they did show up anyway to contain the fire. The claim of callous disregard for human life you're making about American firefighters is completely unsupported by evidence. The closest example you have is case where nobody was harmed. But we've already established that you don't let facts interfere with your narratives.
    - that_guy_iain 4y ago
      Just because the person on the phone doesn't know if there is someone in the house does not remove the possibilities. But that isn't the only way there could be a risk to life from a fire. There are many things a firefighter is trained in to be able to correctly judge the risk to life. A 911 operator is not a trained firefighter. Dismissing the training of firefighters have is very disappointing. The person on the phone often doesn't have all the info. It often happens that fire department only discover a risk to life upon arriving where someone mentions that someone is in the house. Or that X,Y,Z is there. Someone phoned the fire department. The fire department didn't visit because they weren't on a list. The person who was making the decision if there was a risk to life was not on scene nor trained to make that decision. Someone dies the lawsuit would be massive for that level of incomptence.
- dang 4y ago
  "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

LarryMullins 4y ago

> And the fire department didn't go out. Again, more misinformation! They did go out, and made sure the fire didn't spread off the property. If anybody had been imperiled, the firefighters would have helped. FFS, it's right in that article: > They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. And if the firefighters were rude to these people, it's probably because the people who lived there were a bunch of anti-social shitheads and the firefighters knew it. But the firefighters did go out anyway. Stop your nonsense.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
>Again, more misinformation! No, they went out after the neighbour phoned up because of a fire on their property. Anyone who has fully read the article will know that. So stop your nonsense. "Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee."
- jakear 4y ago
  So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. What an entirely reasonable response to getting a service request from someone who has not established a SLA with your company. Do you personally work at a company? If so, I demand you to help me fix a problem I'm having. I haven't paid you, but that shouldn't matter. What's that? You won't help me? But you helped my competitor who did establish a contract with you in which they paid you a monthly fee in exchange for a guarantee you'd help them when the needed it. The horror. The absolute travesty. Society has failed.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    > So the fire department was contacted, did not hear of any lives at risk, and did not show up. The article doesn't say that does it. They say the fire department was contacted and responded that they weren't on the list. They refused to accept any payment. And only turned up when someone who was on the list called. We have a phrase for people like you, jog on.
    - jakear 4y ago
      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim “firefighters wouldn’t come if someone’s life was in danger from a fire” is extraordinary. The evidence “firefighters didn’t come when no one’s life was in danger from a fire” isn’t. Come up with real evidence or quit bellyaching.
      - that_guy_iain 4y ago
        The claim is that the firefighters didn't know if anyone's live was in danger because they didn't show up. The evidence is that they refused to show up when called and only showed up when called by someone else. Without being prescene at the scene it is not possible for a firefigther to know if someone's life is endanger or not because the person calling isn't trained to know that. The real evidence for the very basic claim is there.
        jakear 4y ago
        > Without being prescene at the scene it is not possible for a firefigther to know if someone's life is endanger or not because the person calling isn't trained to know that. Yeah... that's about the weakest argument I've heard this week. Firefighters don't have magical spidey senses to tell them whether someone is trapped in a burning building. They will go based on what the homeowner says -- it doesn't take special training to verify that 3 people live at your house and all of them are on the road with you watching it burn. Fire department certainly isn't risking life and limb to comb through an actively burning building verifying it to be empty when the homeowner themselves already said it was. >that the firefighters didn't know if anyone's live was in danger because they didn't show up. Person: Hello, my house is on fire come save it please. FireDepartment: Is anyone's life in danger? Person: No. FireDepartment: Thank you for letting me know. That's how easy it is, same conversation would happen whether or not they were on "the list".
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  There is approximately a zero percent chance the 911 operator neglected to ask if anybody was in the burning house. They didn't save the house but they did show up anyway to contain the fire. The claim of callous disregard for human life you're making about American firefighters is completely unsupported by evidence. The closest example you have is case where nobody was harmed. But we've already established that you don't let facts interfere with your narratives.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    Just because the person on the phone doesn't know if there is someone in the house does not remove the possibilities. But that isn't the only way there could be a risk to life from a fire. There are many things a firefighter is trained in to be able to correctly judge the risk to life. A 911 operator is not a trained firefighter. Dismissing the training of firefighters have is very disappointing. The person on the phone often doesn't have all the info. It often happens that fire department only discover a risk to life upon arriving where someone mentions that someone is in the house. Or that X,Y,Z is there. Someone phoned the fire department. The fire department didn't visit because they weren't on a list. The person who was making the decision if there was a risk to life was not on scene nor trained to make that decision. Someone dies the lawsuit would be massive for that level of incomptence.
dang 4y ago
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html