The Bonfire leaders did the right thing up until they lit the bonfire. No, it was not right for an 11th hour injunction to be placed, and Sims was dead wrong to tell them they could. They did the right thing and went through the right channels. They should have been warned as soon as the Ban fell that the burn may be in jeopardy up until the ban is lifted.

But the fact of the matter is that they were told not to burn a BONFIRE in the middle of a burn ban, and they chose to scoff at the law and do it anyway, putting the community at risk. And I think that was childish. They should have taken the high road and accepted the injunction in the name of safety. Langley is a fool and should be paying a fine himself for enacting the good-ol-boy ruling he did.

Baseball games are rained out and people reschedule travel plans and move on with their lives.

If my house/pasture/sheep/cow was set on fire because of the illegal burning of Aggie bonfire you guys would be raising money to rebuild my house instead of a bonfire next year.

[This message has been edited by YankeeAg00 (edited 11/22/2005 4:43p).]

And I accept that my new year's argument was overly simplistic. But using your rationale, I would have taken the high road and cancelled the trip. It's that simple.

I am not a Bonfire hater. I would just accept that had this happened on TAMU campus, it would have been TAMU's call to burn or not burn. But here, the people in the community had no say except to recite the law that stands to protect them, which was scoffed at by the bonfire folks, and Langley, and in a larger sense, Sims.

Can one of you please show me how close the embers from Bonfire (when it was burning, which is also the farthest it would have gone) came to the closest property?

They weren't out burning Bonfire in the middle of town. Actually, by using Google Images, the closest house from the site which was downwind was 2500 ft away. Second closest was 3150.

Given the 5 mph winds reported at that time, it would have taken between 5 and 6 minutes for any ember to threaten the nearest home.

Know of many embers that make it that far in the air?

quote:

---

Who in the community would be willing to pick up the tab for the thousands of dollars in losses under such a scenario?

---

apparently the Aggie family.

Look, my point is not that the SB was the only one wrong in this situation. They got screwed. I just think that the law is there to be upheld and they should have taken the high road. Excuse me for being a purist.

YankeeAg00 - how much would you and other critics have donated to Student Bonfire to support a decision to not burn?

Financially, postponing burn was an outright impossibility. It would have bankrupted the organization.

quote:

---

No, it was not right for an 11th hour injunction to be placed, and Sims was dead wrong to tell them they could. They should have been warned as soon as the Ban fell that the burn may be in jeopardy up until the ban is lifted.

---

Again, no fault of Student Bonfire with any of these events.

quote:

---

But the fact of the matter is that they were told not to burn a BONFIRE in the middle of a burn ban, and they chose to scoff at the law and do it anyway, putting the community at risk.

---

How much risk was the community under given the wind conditions at the time and the fire department being on hand?

The answer: NONE

[This message has been edited by Keegan99 (edited 11/22/2005 4:08p).]

It would depend on their level of need and my ability to give, but I definitely would have donated. I will still donate to their continuing efforts as is.

[This message has been edited by YankeeAg00 (edited 11/22/2005 4:08p).]

Thank you YankeeAg for your support. Maybe one of these days, when these students become an adult and have a home of their own that they have worked to have their entire lives, they will understand where we are coming from.

It just blows my mind that they were willing to risk all kinds of dangers (which fortunately didn't happen, but could have happened) just to prove a point.

I've said my say and that's it for this subject. No one is going to listen anyway until something drastic happens. But then, I won't even say I told you so. I'll just keep praying God keeps everyone safe.

ldy - With a minimal wind and the fire department on hand, what exactly "could have happened?"

Now, there's a 25 mph wind and SB says "we're not lighting it" to get the cops away, but then light it anyway...THAT is gross negligence.

There was no real danger here. The facts were examined at burn, and no ones property was at risk. If any small fires did break out, I saw no less than 2 fire trucks on site (and there may have been more).

Hell, in 2003 there was a house no more than 50 yards from the burning stack and it was directly downwind. Embers pelted that house constantly...and it didn't burn down. Why? The fire department was right there dousing it the entire time.

quote:

---

Also, for all the anti-SB sanctimonious types on here...

How many of you are posting from work right now? Does your employer explicitly allow it, or are you stealing money from them despite the fact that you know it's wrong?

---

Silly.

I used to get in this debate too.

I just think it's all a bit ironic. We preach all this stuff at A&M with the Code of Honor, doing the right thing, following chain of command, and all that other pro-military rhetoric. And then when faced with this crisis, we say, "Screw it. Just pay the fine." That doesn't excuse the SNAFU with Attorney Kuboviak and Judge Sims. Sims certainly dropped the ball, and I understand the pressures that 12 months of planning created to pull off this event on schedule. It's the flippancy and stubborness of it all that I find funny. And that flippancy was partially to blame for the failure of Bonfire of 1999.

I am proud of the effort and committment these Aggies show in pulling out Bonfire in the face of adversity, but on the other hand I still think we have a long way to go in doing things through the proper channels and doing things the right way. Getting a verbal blessing from the County Judge is no substitute for knowing the law and following proper channels. Shame of Judge Sims for screwing up, but shame on ASB's legal counsel too who thought a wink and a nod would be good enough. Chalk this up as a lesson learned. Just as important is a method for preserving this corporate knowledge and making sure it is passed down and used from year to year so future generations don't make the same mistake twice. When you're chopping down trees with hand axes and throwing around 1000-lb logs by hand there is much less room for error. We always claimed Bonfire was built the same way every year, but when the truth came out, that wasn't the case. We are never as smart as we think we are. I hope Bonfire learns that.

You should be in politics...that was the best non-answer answer I've seen since last year's debates.

AB2, I am not going to answer your question because your question is irrelevant. I got in this discussion with Keegan many years ago on this topic, and he said his employer was OK wih him using his work computer for non-work as long as he got his work done, even though "theoretically" it was "wrong" to do so. Keegan is on your side. Why don't you ask him that question?

quote:

---

until they kicked up a fuss at the injunction

---

Were you even there? I was. I'd love to know who you are and who you saw "kicking up a fuss."

We were invited to attend the injunction, served with papers there, and asked to testify by the judge, our attorney, and the DA. I personally testified as to the financial ruin of Bonfire if it's burning was not allowed and to the lunacy of just "holding yell practice and sending everyone home" as the DA suggested.

We answered the questions that were asked, kept our members from protesting at the courthouse, sat quietly in the corner as our lawyer went through the motions, and followed every step that was laid before us by the judge. ASB did the right thing through the entire process and could never once be accused of "kicking up a fuss."

The thing is that the Burn Ban should have included the verbage excluding a "ceremonial fire." The Commissioners couldn't meet to change the wording of the ban, so the injunction was lifted, plain and simple. If we were a tribe of American Indians holding an altar fire to honor our God(s) during a burn ban, you bet there would be a huge fuss "kicked up" about our rights to hold a ceremony.

Had the commissioners met, who is to say that they wouln't have changed the wording of their ban to exclude ceremonial fires and define Bonfire as a ceremony honoring the Aggie traditions of the past and those who gave their lives in persuit of it? The world will never know.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

quote:

---

It just blows my mind that they were willing to risk all kinds of dangers (which fortunately didn't happen, but could have happened) just to prove a point.

---

There's no getting around your ignorance and fear-mongering, is there?

With the wind conditions and fire department personnel that were on site, what kinds of catastrophes were possible?

The answer: NONE.

That nothing happened was not some miracle of good fortune or serendipity. It was all assured by the precautions and environment.

[This message has been edited by Keegan99 (edited 11/22/2005 4:41p).]

Perhaps they would have changed it. But they chose not to show up and here we are. I apologize for my irresponsible wording. But I stand by my belief that the injunction should have stood, and that when it was lifted, that Bonfire should not have burned.

I do not think your group's actions that day were a fuss. I do think that you should have obeyed the law.

Your opinion on this issue is irrelevant too Burdizzo (as is mine), but it doesn't stop you from voicing it constantly and then criticizing those who point out even the most fundamental flaws.

AB2:

The last 5 days have seen more posts from me on the Bonfire forum than the previous 5 years. I am pretty certain of that so please be judicious in your use of the word "constantly". However, you are right, ASB never listens to me so I don't know why I waste my time. Thank you, and good bye.

quote:

---

I do think that you should have obeyed the law.

---

I do too. When the group approached the police and a judge (who know the law) and told ASB that they were in compliance, the leaders reasonably relied on these persons' knowledge of the law. The cops and judge didn't know the entire law and that was brought to ASB's doorstep at the 11th hour.

The short of it is that you really don't know that you need a lawyer to interpret and discover the law for you until you are served an injunction or are sued. It's a trial by fire deal, and ASB has been burned to the tune of $500 per citation.

Honestly, breaking the law and getting penalized sure beats the alternitive.

It brings us back to the whole "would you steal bread to feed your family" quagmire. ASB would have starved to death if it didn't get lit on fire. Thank God the Grey pots decided to feed their family.

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.

Sorry, I'll be sure to go to thesaurus.com to make sure I have the proper synonym for the next time you approach from the higher ground to inform the peasants what they're doing wrong.

I had a nice reply to one of the e-mail I wrote on Friday. While I don't share other people's e-mails, it sounded to me like county officials were actually working more closely with the students than it might appear from the outside--they had worked with them on event planning and the county had thought the event was not subject to the ban. All the conflict truly did come out on that last day--and time ran out for a more seemly resolution. This was in fact a compromise--the injunction would NOT have been lifted if officials had a true fear of the event. At least that seem to be the idea I got from my e-mail response.

The group was put in an truly unenviable position. I do support the decision that was made, but I don't fault anyone for criticizing the decision.

The intent of the burn ban was not to stop Bonfire. It was intended to stop unsupervised trash and camp fires that truly are a threat. I think the county officials recognized this and I believe the lifting of the injunction was an act of reparation to that effect.

One thing that that hasn't really been stated is the amount of fire protection that was on scene. From the vantage point of the top of the hill there were no less than 7 grass fire units staged downwind and on adjacent property. I don't even know what was on the upwind side, but I know they were there too.

I support their decision because I think the regulation was misguided, and because I do think they were given the "wink" to go ahead.

At the end of the day, yes, they did break the law and in some way violate the spirit of the Aggie code of honor. For that, the criticism is just.

IMHO, the only reason they didn't lift the burn ban was because they didn't want to be held liable if something had gone wrong. I think they knew what was going to happen and gave the students every sign to go ahead and do it. I'd be shocked if a $500 fine was actually issued for this very reason.

If you want to be mad at someone about it being lit then be mad at the County Commissioners. They said what they had to to CYA and other than that basically said go ahead and light it. While they may have technically broken the law, if you really think anyone with control over it actually cared you are kidding yourself.

Incidentally it should tell you something about the Eagle that they only published letters against Bonfire. Maybe they will surprise me and post some from the other side tomorrow, but I don't see it happening.

I found it very interesting that the only articles the Eagle published about Bonfire before the burn were mainly about the controversies and not solid articles about the massive time and effort needed to pull off such an event or useful information about where to park, etc. Parking areas may have been mentioned(I don't recall), but it was buried in an article that put doubt in people's minds as to whether stack would burn. I know of people about a mile from stack that thought it would not be burning because of all the mis-information floating around.
I'm not a good writer, but could someone who is bring up in a letter to the editor that the bias of the Eagle was very aparent in the ARTICLES on the supposedly objective front page. I'm sure the negative press caused at least 5,000 not to show up.

[This message has been edited by Scotch (edited 11/23/2005 11:33a).]

For all of you p.c. ags crying about "doing the right thing", go back the last 60 years when bonfire burned and bans were in place.

Reading some of the posts on this thread makes me sick. To suggest that future ags will learn that it is okay to break the law is laughable. This kind of p.c. wussy complaining will keep bonfire off campus. Thanks a lot.

Hey hey as we all know, authority is always right. If we question them we would end up with a bunch of responsibilities and no one to take care of us. I am still furious at those stupid rebellious colonists who made King George leave us.

quote:

---

it sounded to me like county officials were actually working more closely with the students than it might appear from the outside--they had worked with them on event planning and the county had thought the event was not subject to the ban. All the conflict truly did come out on that last day--and time ran out for a more seemly resolution.

---

quote:

---

99_aggie_grad
posted 8:03p, 11/18/05



07, you need to calm down bro. The city(ies) exist in conjunction and coordination with the University. There are a hundred thousand of us here that will be here long after you leave. We deserve as much respect as you do while you're here.

This is not going to ruin political careers; mMostly because the students couldn't get a quorum of a Chem 101 class to turnout and vote, but also because this issue is being WAY overblown.

Again, you guys that wear Bonfire as an emotional badge on your sleeve sometimes need to take a deep breath and step back from the situation. Folks that live, work and CONTROL these cities/area/county are not out to get the students, ruin the University or otherwise infringe upon your rights.

Sometimes there are rules and regulations to which we must abide, and tradition does not always trump them (although sometimes it seemingly does). Perhaps the issue of Bonfire had been reviewed and it was determined the county needed to go through the proper process in order to cover their ass.

We shouldn't ALL pretend to ALWAYS know EVERYTHING about ANY situation having to do with city/county government.

---

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=5&topic_id=528500