quote:

---

Why don't you discuss them on this thread............?

---

Maybe because he doesn't feel like discussing very personal issues on a public BBS?



[This message has been edited by TexAgs staff (edited 11/16/2004 9:49p).]

Keegan,...nice to hear from you!

Again people are putting their own fantasy about what is a real bonfire into this equation. It is very selfish to say it has to be exactly how it was when you were here for it to be the "real" thing. Many of our traditions have evolved over time. Bonfire, by necessity, has as well. To a few of you it would not be real bonfire unless it was exactly like it was pre 99. That will never happen because it was unsafe when you did it. To make it the way you want it would be asinine. If the only thing making it real to you is that it is on the polo fields then it was not real when it was on the other side of campus either. Get over yourselves. This is not your bonfire. It stopped being your bonfire when you died. Now you are useless and the bonfire is the current students. Stop raining on their parade because you are pouty about it not being how you want it.

quote:

---

Keegan,...nice to hear from you!

---

Hate to keep anonymous, AgTag-less folks hiding behind keyboards waiting too long.

I wouldnt have an Ag tag were I not given one. People make far too big of a deal out of it.

You know what, those are 2 photos out of the many on the website.

I can assure you that no one is allowed past where the Green pots are stationed without jeans, boots and a pot. Pot comes off down there, someone runs after you and puts it on your head. There is ABSOLUTELY no alcohol allowed on site and if we find out you've been drinking, you're sent home with no qualms about it.

I don't know why they didn't have pots on their heads, but I can promise you there was probably a reason. I don't know so I can't comment.

Our bonfire is a fairly safe one. Aside from some bumps and bruises and cuts and whatnot, there hasn't been anything major. Student Bonfire is the biggest part of who I am... and I feel it's selfish to let something fizzle out that the 12 that passed away were so passionate about. But, it's dumb to let passion get in the way of reasoning.

I feel our leadership does a good job balancing that. We've taken the university's assesment of what happend and we've implemented things above and beyond what they've mentioned.

As I have said before, instead of sitting around a darn computer complaining about things... if you see something that is a problem then why don't you try to fix it? The leaders of our bonfire are willing to take in account the advice of older Ags.

You don't see someone at the top of stack, hanging from a swing by their feet and twirling around, now do you? No.

Those 2 pictures are not indicitive of what we're about.

Until you come out and see that we are serious about safety for yourself, then you need to shut it. I am high tired of people making uneducated opinions about what Student Bonfire is about.

End of story. Now I am going to stack because more importantly than a couple of pictures, we have a bonfire to safely finish so we can burn in 4 days. WHOOP!

Thanks for the support of those who gave encouragement. See you when she burns!

[This message has been edited by northsidegreek06 (edited 11/16/2004 8:21p).]

Never said it had to be the same as it was when I was there...where did you get that from? Just has to be safe...and it's not. It wasn't when I was there and it's not now.

Having said that, I could care less if the students want to have a pep rally off campus....just don't try to sue the University when someone gets killed or maimed because your "safety expert" was on the ball and allowed students with no piss pots and flip flops to work on the "bonfire".

BTHOtu

tp


[This message has been edited by Bigsteve (edited 11/16/2004 8:22p).]

[This message has been edited by Bigsteve (edited 11/16/2004 8:23p).]

dp

Bigsteve, have you been out to the site?

nm

[This message has been edited by AB2 (edited 11/16/2004 8:50p).]

Well, I have a point to make and it is this and this is final. I wasn't actually directing my 1st post towards anyone in particular - just about the generality of this thread. Secondly, stop making uneducated opinions. It makes you look stupid. That, again, is in general.

So good night, I'm walking out the door.

The individual using the axe is wearing inappropirate footwear (tennis shoes), and is not wearing eye protection. I won't speak to his chopping technique, but with chips flying off, It looks like the blade has bounced off the trunk.

quote:

---

• Part Number: 1926
• Part Title: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
• Subpart: E
• Subpart Title: Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
• Standard Number: 1926.96
• Title: Occupational foot protection.

Safety-toe footwear for employees shall meet the requirements and specifications in American National Standard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear, Z41.1-1967.

[58 FR 35152; June 30, 1993]



• Part Number: 1926
• Part Title: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
• Subpart: E
• Subpart Title: Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
• Standard Number: 1926.102
• Title: Eye and face protection.
• Applicable Standards: 1910.133

1926.102(a)

General.

1926.102(a)(1)

Employees shall be provided with eye and face protection equipment when machines or operations present potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents.

1926.102(a)(2)

Eye and face protection equipment required by this Part shall meet the requirements specified in American National Standards Institute, Z87.1-1968, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection.

---

Three individuals in the background are not wearing any head protection.

Furthermore, I would venture to guess that an army surplus helmet liner is not certified under ANSI standards.

quote:

---

• Part Number: 1926
• Part Title: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
• Subpart: E
• Subpart Title: Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
• Standard Number: 1926.100
• Title: Head protection.
• Applicable Standards: 1910.135

1926.100(a)

Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall be protected by protective helmets.

1926.100(b)

Helmets for the protection of employees against impact and penetration of falling and flying objects shall meet the specifications contained in American National Standards Institute, Z89.1-1969, Safety Requirements for Industrial Head Protection.

---

The hard hat I bought in 1999 and am currently holding in my hand has a sticker on it that reads:

Fibre-Metal (R)
Concordville, PA 19331 USA
CERTIFED MODEL
ANSI Z89.1-1997
TYPE 1, CLASS E (This hardhat provedes some electrial protection)

My pot from 1986 has no such certification indication.


Like I said, I'm no safety expert, but if some dumbass like me can find safety violations in these pictures this easily, I hate to see what a legitimate certifed safety expert could find. It also took me less than 5 minutes to find these rules on the OSHA website. With all due respect to safety officers, safety shouldn't be rocket science.

Lack of attention to detail is why Bonfire failed twice in the 1990's. Sadly, I still see a lack of attention to detail in these pictures. They may not be an indication of the what's really going on, but there are still details being missed. To add to this irritation is people telling me it's "safer" when in reality is still not as safe as it ought to be.

If the safety plan or a statement from the safety professional helping Student Bonfire were posted on the website, I will gladly retract my criticism of what I see in these pictures.

Those shoes have steel toes. I know because I specifically asked when I saw that student in the woods.

quote:

---

If the safety plan or a statement from the safety professional helping Student Bonfire were posted on the website, I will gladly retract my criticism of what I see in these pictures.

---

Car broken? Come out and ask yourself. If you are legitimately concerned about student safety and welfare, you would. Otherwise you're just trying to win an internet pissing contest.

[This message has been edited by Keegan99 (edited 11/16/2004 9:12p).]

Burd - interesting on the pots. Not something I had honestly thought about, but I'm also not involved with the project.

Would "cut" be classified by OSHA as a construction project? (*Self-Edit...of course not, OSHA doesn't apply to projects like Bonfire, but you get my drift*) (I don't mean this tacky...) You know more about this topic than I do.


[This message has been edited by AB2 (edited 11/16/2004 9:19p).]

quote:

---

you're just trying to win an internet pissing contest.

---

Now that's ironic .....

That's 95% of what goes on at TexAgs, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're just trying to win an internet pissing contest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now that's ironic .....

---

LMAO!

The way Keegan would tell it, there is nothing he can't do better than everyone else.

Yea, because I've obviously said I'm an expert on this thread.

Since all the students are volunteers, isn't it true OSHA standards don't apply?

Although I doubt very seriously that much of this criticism was intended to be constructive, I challenge the current participants and leaders to take it as such. I know as well as any of you that this stuff has been taken out of context, and for every picture we can scrounge up of someone wearing questionable looking shoes, I personally have seen many, many people sent home for showing up dressed inappropriately.

I know the truth about what goes on out there, and I know that you are doing a good job. Keeping the emphasis on safety is paramount, and as the participation of people who were around in 1999 fades out, it's going to require more and more effort to get that message to the younger folks who don't directly understand the consequences.

Things slip under the radar, & new situations require improvisation. These anomolies happen, but don't for a second think it's okay to be lax. Don't think it's okay to be complacent either. There is room for improvement. Acknowledge the concerns of others and work proactively to make sure the emphasis on safety is not eroded.

Excellent post...

BTW - with just a quick google search, I found this site where these hard hats that were discussed can be bought for ~14 a pop in the bulk SB would need. That's only an extra $6 per person, and perhaps that can be subsidized...

http://www.customhardhats.com/fibermetal.shtml

[This message has been edited by AB2 (edited 11/16/2004 10:19p).]

I'll pass the information on. But like I said, instead of just complaining about stuff, if you really see something that is an issue, why do you not take it to the Greys? Seriously. Otherwise you're just criticizing for the sake of criticizing - not being constructive at all.

The shoes in the above picture were steel toed. I know because I asked when he walked throught the gate. The guys in the back were taking drinks of water. You know, to not get dehydrated... I understand your point but I am not the person to be arguing with you about this. I just have to keep watch over who is let in the gate and make sure that they have the proper attire and equipment. Any other issues you may take to a Grey pot... and not via an internet message board.

Again, I understand your concern but in order for me to really respect your opinion, it needs to be from a first-hand account, not from something a camera catches or by heresay.

Nothing is ever perfect, but as I have said before, we have taken the assessment of 99 and have implemented recommendations and have taken steps to go above and beyond those recommendations. Every year proves to present new challenges and more experience... and a more tight reign on safety.

So, let's put this thread to rest. If you have a specific concern, e-mail the student bonfire account which can be found from the webpage. Someone who can address your opinion will get back to you. It's a whole lot more constructive than b*tching on a message board.

For starters, everyone needs to take a big step back. Not a normal half-a$$ed step back, but a huge one. Here one texags is not the place to piss and moan about how my bonfire is not like your bonfire.

I built Aggie Bonfire '97 from first cut to last stack. I remember all the unsafe bull**** that happened out there. You all are really damn quick to point out the fact that in a whopping three of our pictures this year there is something "unsafe" going on. Does anyone remember how perimeter poles were set back in the day, and how much alcohol was consumed that night? Does anyone remember dumba$$es climbing up the ropes? Does anyone remember cut injuries because idiots were downswinging that didn't know how to? It seems as though all of the f#$%^ing huge safety related problems with the old army Bonfire are amazingly easily forgotten, while an insignificant few are mentioned about MY bonfire this year.

I am a brownpot this year. My a$$ is on the line if anything goes wrong. As I said before, I built from start to finish in '97 and am 110% confident that MY bonfire this year is a crapload safer than it was in 97. If anyone wants to argue, feel free to email me at djx02@yahoo.com.

The tradition is not going to die anytime soon, and if any of you could ask any of the 15 people who gave their lives for Aggie Bonfire over the 90 years we had our fantastic tradition, I am sure that they would tell you the same. Why were people working midnight to six? I assure you that it was not because they were forced to, but they wanted to be there. That is why midnight to six was the most fun and productive shift on stack. The bums that were "part" of Bonfire were not there at the ungodly hours of the day. Sure, some people were out there in the middle of the night because they were told to be, but the vast majority were there because they knew that if Bonfire was going to be built, it was up to them to get it done. I know that I was working midight to six because it was fun. I was out at stack when we were not even scheduled to be there because I love Bonfire. I wanted to be there when the real work got done.

Fast forward a few years to 2002. I disagreed with Unity Project in 2002. I felt that it was a disgrace to Aggie Bonfire. In 2003, I decided to go out to first cut. I was impressed. For once, safety came FIRST, not jackassery. With one or two days that I was out of town, I was there building the hell outta bonfire last year. I am fortunate enough to be a brownpot this year. Unless I had to be out of town (one day), I have not missed a single day of Bonfire this year. I can never say enough that MY bonfire this year is a boatload safer than it ever used to be when it was on campus and "real."

I remember what the "real" Bonfire was like, and I can't stand a considerable amount of the retardedly unsafe stuff that happened there. Honestly, it is amazing that less than 20 people gave their lives for Aggie Bonfire while it burned on campus and was sanctioned by the administration.

Like I said before, stop griping about how the students are screwing up by building Fightin' Texas Aggie Bonfire and get yourself out to watch us, and joing in, a time or two. I'm pretty damn sure that you'll agree with me.


[Edit, apparently I can't spell "people," so I had to fix it.]

[This message has been edited by djx02 (edited 11/17/2004 4:21a).]

Damn, if I had known that my footware made Bonfire unsafe, I would have made Chad drive me home to get my grodes before having an impromptu trip out to Stack. My apologies everyone.

[This message has been edited by diehard03 (edited 11/17/2004 4:38a).]

It's okay, I will just give you a swift kick to the butt next time I see you.

I've been out a few times and I support this current effort.

That said...This new group is trying hard to make it safer than it was, but there are things that have been overlooked. Like BTH02 said, take the things pointed out here, especially by Burdizzo, as constructive criticism. None of the things shown in the pics should have been allowed to happen and you need to make sure they don't in the future.

While the type of protective head wear, to me anyway, is debatable, I did wonder about the lack of eye wear. And, yes, they are making tennis shoes with steel toes in them now. I didn't believe it until I saw some at Academy. They even have shoes that look like house slippers with steel toes in them.

Scott Coker '92/'95

Everyone griping about how off-campus student bonfire is not "real" Fightin' Texas Aggie Bonfire needs to look at the good ol ags out there building it. Stop raining hate down on our bonfire. I can't believe that you guys are arguing that we shouldn't get to experience anything like on-campus Bonfire. My apologies that I was born in 86 and didn't get a chance to work on the old Bonfire. It sickens me to read some of the former students posts on this subject. Why can't you all get a life. Im class of 08, and if it's up to me, there is going to be a bonfire burning every year. My goal isn't to see it burn this year, but to see the faces of future Aggies when they see one burn in 2020 due to my efforts here in 2004. If I wasn't out at bonfire getting my daily dose of Aggie Spirit, you guys would really make me depressed. If anyone is upset because this little fish made some bold comments, feel free to make me push.

[This message has been edited by gkaggie08 (edited 11/17/2004 4:47p).]

GK - While I agree with your sentiment, you might want to edit and cut the tone back on that a bit.

Those are people who will NEVER be converted to the idea that Aggie Bonfire can exist off-campus by words on a msg board, and it makes you look like you have egg on your face.

quote:

---

Everyone griping about how off-campus student bonfire is not "real" Fightin' Texas Aggie Bonfire needs to just shut-up.

---

Attitudes like this are straight out of the Linbeck report.

NoAC - I understand what you're getting at, but to compare the Linbeck report with the "Pro-Bonfire" attitude is sensationalizing it at best, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say so at all. That line is an extremely defensive attempt to silence any criticism - a mistake we made far too often in the past.

I think it's an attempt against the "You're not really Bonfire!" argument, not the "Hey, this would make it better" argument.

Can one morph to the other? God I hope not.