On Apr 5, 1:53 pm, wrote:
If my kid was in that school they'd have needed to chain me up or I'd
have been in there taking care of business. Those cowards dont
deserve a badge. Letting the killers have all the time they wanted is
not good policy. Too many died because of that delay. This is why
criminals in America are so brazen. They know cops and citizens are
impotent to put them out.

On Apr 5, 4:34 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:



In article .com,

wrote:
I agree that the SWAT teams in Columbine blew it- There is a lunch
truck in the video!!!!! Those idiots need some b@LLs. Even cops
think that in that type of situation the officers need to barge in and
get the perps startled and lives will be saved.

You are really brave with other people's lives...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:52:35 -0400, Luke Howett Fitzhugh
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:51:38 -0400, mm
wrote:

That's the way they figure it, but it might be a lot less. The real
costs are the costs of the gasoline it burns and a proportional charge
of the cost of overhauling the engine and other repairs.

You're ignoring the missed opportunity costs. You seem to think these
guys and choppers are sitting around all the time. Whatever else they

I may not have written a treatise on the subject, but I don't think
that at all.

However if they failed to save someone in more danger at the time,
that would have been a scandal and not just an expense.

had to do at that time still has to be done. For that reason, crew
costs are completely reasonable to include.

If they have to work overtime that week, yes. But if they worked 37
hours and because of the guy in the tree, they have to be in the air
40 hours, then it wouldn't cost more. I don't consider being in the
air or doing other mandatory chores 37 hours in a week to be "sitting
around all the time".

If they really spend every minute of their time in the air doing
rescues etc. or on their way to do one, they should plan for busy days
and buy another helicopter and hire another crew.

Although I wouldn't mind billing the guy something, but you can't make
it so much that people will fall out of trees rather than call rescue.

We don't charge for the fire department to come, even though almost
all fires are started by someone's, usually a resident's, stupid
mistake. I think this was Benjamin Franklin's idea, and before him,
there were profit-making fire departments, and they would come, and
they would negotiate with the owner about how much he would pay them
to put out the fire, while his building was burning down. Franklin
didn't like this system.

(I found out that in NYS, if you hit those very big yellow or orange
barrels at the fork at expresway exit ramps, they charge you for each
barrel you damage and the sand inside. It was about 200 or 300
dollars each 25 years ago! That seems like a lot of money. I had
assumed they were like party favors for bad drivers.

But they normally, I believe, quote costs including a proportional
cost of the crew's time, and the initional cost and interst on the
price of the helicopter, and the costs of running the whole
department. Must of these are fixed costs that don't actually go up
when they do a specific thing.

Hmm... "initional cost and interst"? What language is that? No, the
cost of running the whole department is not included in those
estimates. The Coast Guard isn't even organized into departments. $10K
certainly doesn't pay the cost of the entire PD or FD for that length
of time.

Again, I was trying to be brief, something readers here know comes as
a challenge to me. I never said the whole PD, and even if the Coast
Guard doesn't have departments, it has some subdivision, if only for
accounting, that either includes helicopter operations, or rescue
operations, or something like that. I don't think 10 thouasand will
pay for the whole PD for that time, and what I meant was that if you
take the annual budget, divide by the hours in the year and multiply
by the hours it takes to do the rescue (3?),

then divide by the number of employees in the department or the number
that deal with the public, and multiply by the number that were
involved in the rescue, that might be how they calculate the cost.

Luke

Anyhow, I'm just going to think about Oren's approval of hamsterality
now.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:42:54 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:51:38 -0400, mm
wrote:

hamsterality

Will always be imprinted on my brain, henceforth.

Funny!

Thanks.

Recorded by Marvin and the Chipmunks:

"Whoa, whoa, wover and over, I tried to prove my love to you.
Over and over, what more can I do?
Oh, over and over and over, my friends say I'm a fool.
But oh, oh, over and o'o'over, I'll be a fool for you.

'cause you've got, hamsterality,
Walk, hamsterality
Talk, hamsterality
Charm and hamsterality
Love and hamsterality

And yes you´ve got a great big heart
So over and over, oh, I´ll be a fool to you
Now over and over, what more can I do ?


Over and over, I said that I loved you
Over and over, honey now it´s the truth
Over and over, they still say I´m a fool
But oh, oh, over and o'o'over, I´ll be a fool for you

(Also recorded by Lloyd Price)

"Harry K" wrote


Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K


Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

In article ,
mm wrote:

Although I wouldn't mind billing the guy something, but you can't make
it so much that people will fall out of trees rather than call rescue.

I don't know, there is sorta Darwinian logic about letting them take a
header doncha think?


We don't charge for the fire department to come, even though almost
all fires are started by someone's, usually a resident's, stupid
mistake. I think this was Benjamin Franklin's idea, and before him,
there were profit-making fire departments, and they would come, and
they would negotiate with the owner about how much he would pay them
to put out the fire, while his building was burning down. Franklin
didn't like this system.
On the other hand, they do often charge for non-fire
emergencies. Chemical spills come to mind. Some other kinds of rescues.

In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote


Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K


Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

Still wasn't changed into let's just go ahead and barge on in
immediately.

On Apr 6, 3:56 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote

Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K

Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

Still wasn't changed into let's just go ahead and barge on in
immediately.

And still doesn't change that it is still "policy" that must be
followed. Has nothing to do with 'cowardice'.

Harry K

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:52:55 -0400, mm
wrote:

However if they failed to save someone in more danger at the time,
that would have been a scandal and not just an expense.

If there was another emergency, after they had left their base, it
would not be a scandal (on their part), but a costly inconvenience to
bring in another resource. That is both and expense and a hazard to
life.

If they have to work overtime that week, yes. But if they worked 37
hours and because of the guy in the tree, they have to be in the air
40 hours, then it wouldn't cost more.

Regardless of the overtime, there is training that might not be
completed on time, increasing the risk to life. We've already
discussed the possibility that another emergency might occur while
they are needlessly occupied. Any time that a rescue team is tied-up
unnecessarily, there is a tangible cost to the community.

Although I wouldn't mind billing the guy something, but you can't make
it so much that people will fall out of trees rather than call rescue.

I think this case was blatant enough for a person of average
intelligence to see that it is not among the situations that normally
occur. This is a person with very poor judgment, but enough money to
buy $2000 parrots. He can pay for his foolishness.

We don't charge for the fire department to come, even though almost
all fires are started by someone's, usually a resident's, stupid
mistake.

There are levels of stupidity. A person of average intelligence can
easily, accidentally cause a fire. A person of average intelligence is
extremely unlikely to do what this guy did.

Anyhow, I'm just going to think about Oren's approval of hamsterality
now.

Yeah, you should definitely stick with the one thing that you did OK
with.

Luke

That columbine case was an easy take down- anyone with a gun gets
dropped. anyone suspicious gets cuffe and searched. Letting the
killers walk around at leisure was cowardice- plain and simple. Those
kids wouldnt be brave if a skilled shooter had the drop on them

On Apr 6, 9:39 am, "Harry K" wrote:
On Apr 6, 3:56 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote

Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K

Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

Still wasn't changed into let's just go ahead and barge on in
immediately.

And still doesn't change that it is still "policy" that must be
followed. Has nothing to do with 'cowardice'.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:59:35 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"deke" wrote in message
.. .

So a guy gets stuck in a tree while chasing his parrot and can't get
down. No problem. The fire department have ladders on all their
fire trucks, right?

Evidently not. They had to try police helicopters and then a coast
guard helicopter to get him down.

Where the hell are the ladders?

Somebody needs to check this out and hurry before we actually need a
ladder to save a life.

I can see you know nothing about ladders. IIRC, the story said the guy was
quite a way up a tree. Ever try manhandling just a 16" ladder? Know what
it takes to get a multiton fire ladder truck near enough to a given point to
use a ladder? I didn't think so, either. That's why they are usually used
on solid asphalt or concrete. WITH outriggers extended.

How would you have done it? Maybe you ought to start a service. With your
intelligence, you could make millions.

Or not.

Steve


The notion of a taser and an airbag has a certain appeal, though.

"Goedjn" wrote

The notion of a taser and an airbag has a certain appeal, though.

I like that one where the Japanese used their version of the Taser (water
cannon) and an airbag.

From the demeanor of the guy when interviewed, I think a Taser might have
had no effect .............

Steve

On Apr 6, 7:51 am, wrote:
That columbine case was an easy take down- anyone with a gun gets
dropped. anyone suspicious gets cuffe and searched. Letting the
killers walk around at leisure was cowardice- plain and simple. Those
kids wouldnt be brave if a skilled shooter had the drop on them

On Apr 6, 9:39 am, "Harry K" wrote:



On Apr 6, 3:56 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote

Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K

Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

Still wasn't changed into let's just go ahead and barge on in
immediately.

And still doesn't change that it is still "policy" that must be
followed. Has nothing to do with 'cowardice'.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you do not understand the simple word "policy". I see.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 6, 7:51 am, wrote:
That columbine case was an easy take down- anyone with a gun gets
dropped. anyone suspicious gets cuffe and searched. Letting the
killers walk around at leisure was cowardice- plain and simple. Those
kids wouldnt be brave if a skilled shooter had the drop on them

On Apr 6, 9:39 am, "Harry K" wrote:



On Apr 6, 3:56 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote

Ummm....Did you guys miss all the coverage somehow? That they
were
following policy just like all the other departments had the same
policy. Did you somehow miss that that policy was changed
nationwide
after Columbine?

Harry K

Now, Harry. Don't confuse 'em by bringing in facts.

Steve

Still wasn't changed into let's just go ahead and barge on in
immediately.

And still doesn't change that it is still "policy" that must be
followed. Has nothing to do with 'cowardice'.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you do not understand the simple word "policy". I see.

Harry K


You quoted me, so I'll respond. They blew Columbine. They assessed a new
set of tactics for future situations. I understand and agree.

Steve

"Luke Howett Fitzhugh" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:18:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

http://www.duosafety.com

True. But the original suggestion was that one could bop down locally
and grab a 40 footer for $350 or so. These guys you have to special
order and the cheapest 40 footer is over $1600. Not really within the
OP's stated parameters.

The OP claimed that he could buy a 60-footer for under $200.

Luke

must be from china and made from Bamboo

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:34:13 -0700, "Mike"
wrote:


"Luke Howett Fitzhugh" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:18:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

http://www.duosafety.com

True. But the original suggestion was that one could bop down locally
and grab a 40 footer for $350 or so. These guys you have to special
order and the cheapest 40 footer is over $1600. Not really within the
OP's stated parameters.

The OP claimed that he could buy a 60-footer for under $200.

Luke

must be from china and made from Bamboo


It is from the Internet and made totally from nonsense.

Luke

True. But the original suggestion was that one could bop down locally
and grab a 40 footer for $350 or so.

You can always tell the guys that are on drugs, who haven't got a clue, or
haven't been shopping for twenty five years.

Hell, a decent six footer is fifty bucks, and a good eight footer
(300#'ers) are a Franklin.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:17:07 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

True. But the original suggestion was that one could bop down locally
and grab a 40 footer for $350 or so.

You can always tell the guys that are on drugs, who haven't got a clue, or
haven't been shopping for twenty five years.

I was in your "hood" the other day, grabbing wire from the freeway
lights on 95 (BFG). No ladder needed; behind the sound wall.

Hell, a decent six footer is fifty bucks, and a good eight footer
(300#'ers) are a Franklin.

--
Oren

"I don't have anything against work. I just figure, why deprive somebody who really loves it."