Ok, so we're told to post our own opinion thread. Here it is. As you can see from the articles below, Aggiesgirl and I aren't the only ones with the opinion that what was done was wrong. This is coming from Old Ags also!

It's like I said on a previous post, the Aggie Code of Honor has changed to "Aggies do not lie, cheat or steal, but it's ok to break any laws that stand in our way."

Editorial Page: Bryan College Station Eagle:

quote:

---

Bad way to honor

Eagle Editorial



Students and former students of Texas A&M University involved in the off-campus bonfire at Hot Rod Hill Saturday night disrespected the memory of the 12 fellow Aggies who died so horribly when Bonfire collapsed six years ago, as well as those who continue to suffer so much from the injuries they sustained that terrible morning in 1999.

This year, the organizers of the off-campus bonfire also disrespected the law. Their conduct should bring shame to their fellow Aggies.

Miranda Denise Adams, Christopher D. Breen, Michael Stephen Ebanks, Jeremy Richard Frampton, Jamie Lynn Hand, Christopher Lee Heard, Timothy Doran Kerlee Jr., Lucas John Kimmel, Brian A. McClain, Chad A. Powell, Jerry Don Self, Nathan Scott West. Names inscribed on the moving tribute to those who died, names that will forever be enshrined in the memories of Aggies everywhere.

Ironically, as other Aggies were observing the sixth anniversary of the Bonfire tragedy Friday, leaders of the off-campus event spent the day fighting an injunction against lighting the bonfire issued that morning by District Judge J.D. Langley.

Langley issued the injunction because Brazos County is under a burn ban - meaning no one may burn anything in the county - designed to prevent fires from getting out of hand. The ban was put into place by county commissioners because of the drought we are experiencing. It is there for a reason, and it makes sense.

Langley indicated he would give commissioners a chance to rescind the burn ban, but only two of the five - less than the necessary quorum - showed up Friday evening for a special meeting, so the ban remained in place. Even had all the commissioners attended the meeting, the ban should have remained in place. We were as dry Friday as we have been for some time, and the danger of fires getting out of hand remains strong.

But inexplicably, after the aborted commissioners meeting, Langley absolved his injunction, although he did warn the student leaders that they were subject to a $500 fine each if they violated the burn ban by lighting the bonfire.

Old Ags, who should know better, stepped in and offered to pay the fine for anyone receiving a citation for violating the burn ban. By doing so, they also disrespected the law and disregarded the danger that the fire posed.

In the coming weeks, A&M's student government will decide whether the Aggies who build their bonfires off campus should become a recognized student group. Rather than give those students a stamp of approval, A&M's student leaders should let them know that such bonfires are a disservice to all Aggies and to the memories of those who died maintaining a tradition.

-------------------------------------------

Letters


Seemingly absurd

Am I missing something here or did District Judge J.D. Langley (Eagle, Nov. 19) engage in something akin to conspiracy with the organizers of the off-campus student bonfire to commit an unlawful act?

The Eagle reported that Langley said, "If you're going to do this, do it orderly and peacefully so nobody gets hurt and accept the consequences of your actions." Here we have a government official meeting with and advising a group of citizens on how to "safely" break a burn ban law designed specifically to ensure public safety.

This seems irresponsible at best. Given the history of the bonfire, Langley's ruling approaches the absurd.

MICHAEL ALVARD

College Station

Acting like children

I heard the statement on the news that the bonfire would be lit even if organizers might be fined for violation of Brazos County's burn ban. I know and understand the students' eagerness to see a bonfire before the big game, but as a former Ag, I am not pleased with the students.

There are rules and reasons for certain things in life. The burn ban is in effect to prevent burning property, killing cattle or whatever. To say they were going to go ahead and do it anyway was just being brats. Maybe the organizers should be suspended from A&M and sent home for their mothers to give them a spanking like the little brats they have become.

The spirit of Aggieland isn't dependent upon bonfire. They will find, after they graduate, the Aggie spirit is everywhere. Those of us who walked the campus from class to class are still, even years later, full of that spirit. It doesn't die because there is no more bonfire on campus.

But the students who burned the off-campus bonfire have hurt that spirit by being brats lighting a fire they knew they weren't allowed to light. They sent the wrong message to all young people in Brazos County: do as you please and disobey the rules. That's the mark of a child.

They acted like children, not Aggies. They should be ashamed.

MILTON PACK

Bryan

---

let me pose this question. If you break the rules and take the punishment without complaint, why do others get upset about it?

They broke the law, and are planning on paying the fine.

Lets see, the Greypots wanted to burn Bonfire. The county told us that if they did light Bonfire, then they would be fined. The Greypots decided that disapointing 5000 Aggies by not lighting Bonfire would be worse than $500 per fine issued.

They are not children, brats, spoiled or anything of the like. They have taken the punishment without complaint.

What is everyone's big problem with this?

The problem is the example they are setting to other kids. We have all broken the law at some time or another and have paid the price, but to go and break the law in such a public matter when others are watching so closely is setting a really bad example. It just bothers me of what we are telling the world with the actions of a few who are rebelling against the system.

I see it as a example in leadership doing what has to be done when it has to be done.

If a child (doubtful that children are watching the news and pick up on the subtlties of why someone broke the law) sees that someone broke the law and was punished, what have they learned? Breaking the law has consequences

This wasn't something that "had to be done". This is something that a group of people "wanted done". Big Difference!

Why don't we just keep our children from suffering consequences neededlessly? Don't break the law...don't face consequences.

But how does that make it ok to break the law?

you make it sound like lighting a fire and excepting the consequences is up there with selling drugs or raping women.

Thank you for sharing a handful of complaints and whines in a sea of people that appreciated what happened.

people for the bonfire > whiners

It wasnt 'ok' to break the law. If it was 'ok' to break the law, then we wouldnt have been fined. But we were fined. Therefore we are accepting our punishment.

Bonfire is a infant orginization. It isnt strong enough to skip a year of burning. If you want all practical knowledge of Bonfire to die, then advocate forcing us to not burn in the future.

.... edited out rant about people that dont understand cost/benefit of doing something. ....

If no one ever went against "the system," this country would be a far, far different place than it is today. Our history is filled with open acts of civil disobedience where those engaging in such acts went against "the system" because their beliefs compelled them to do so, and thus they were more than willing to accept the consequences of their actions due to a compulsion of conscience.

Such seems to be the case here, i.e. these guys are dedicated to preserving tradition and opted to accept the consequences of violating the burn ban in order to preserve one of the most cherished of Aggie traditions.

And while I am sure many wish that today's students would just be willing little sheep doing what they are told, tradition be damned, it is the traditions of old that have defined us as Aggies, forged character and commitment, and made an Aggie ring and the title of Texas Aggie something to be proud of.

well put oldyeller!

I think some were using this to try to kill bonfire--knowing that a single year of not burning is prety much the end--students not rich enough to finance it with zero income from the event.

They will cloack that opposition in many forms, but they are out to kill Bonfire, clear and simple.


Lighting in the face of an injunction would have been blatant and ill advised. The actual event was a compromise--the injunction was removed and even a system for the citations was agreed upon.

There was almost cooperation of sorts between the law enforcement, fire officials, and students. The fine will be paid for by those who understand why.

Remember that students had been led to believe by county officials that the ceremonial exemption applied, that the county attempt to stop the fire was last minute without time for full legal and political response. Remember that Bonfire can't have a floating schedule since the event had time constraints.

Remember all of this. The judge and authorities know on Friday evening how this was going to be handled--they could have stopped it if they had really wanted to.

For those that hate Bonfire--go ahead and hate it.

Many more of us have such respect for the determination of the students who had the courage and resolve to see this through--accepting the full consequenced for the "horrid" crime of violating the burn ban.

Next year I hope a sea of Aggie Attorneys will help them be proactive and not trust the word of officials who may have themselves been ill informed.

Who wrote the OP piece? To spin this as disrespect to the 12 is totally uncalled for.
The only thing disrespectful is throwing around those names to give their editorial sensationalist bite. They should be ashamed. Absolutely horrible.

Notice that the letters were written to the editoral page and not stuck to every house in the county.

There are proper ways to express opinions.

i agree with the above post. (buildthehell)

[This message has been edited by E (edited 11/22/2005 12:44p).]

Agreed, it is in very poor taste to bandy about the names of the 12 simply to incite an emotional response. The on-line version of The Eagle lists no author, but it does list the contact information for the Opinions Editor, to whom well thought out letters of discontent may be directed. His contact information, taken directly from the Eagle's Staff information page is as follows:

Robert C. Borden
Opinions Editor
robert.borden@theeagle.com
979-731-4621

Someone please do write a letter about this. I am absolutely infuriated about this, and I'm not sure I can write a reasonable response. This is the most disrespectful thing I have seen since the collapse except for the wacko preacher. The fallen and their families do not deserve to be drug into an op ed about a burn ban.

[This message has been edited by buildthehell02 (edited 11/22/2005 1:05p).]

When people have an obvious agenda, they will use the names of the lost Aggies.

It is wrong.

3rd Gen, with all due respect, I think you are being overly paranoid.

Burd to me if they had raised the issue even ten days before burn--with ample time to seek full legal recourses, I would have a different view. People who wait till the day before burn to go for an injunction really leave me smelling a rat--wait till you know there is no way to legally manipulate, and then the kids had their backs into the corners.

I also sense a friendly wink wink dropping of the injunction and just fining for the ban violation, but those who are anti bonfire perioud are using this event to try to smear then students who were placed in a lose, lose situation.

If there had not been the original misinformation about ceremonial fires, or if the injunction had been filed with time for full legal recourse and appeals, then I would say people were just worried about the burn ban. The eleventh hour attempt to stop it to me seems to be people hoping to find a way to kill the entire movement.

Again probably is just me being paranoid. I have a deep distrust of many politicians--and hope the students get every waiver in writing with signatures next year--even IF it rains ten inches in November.

I can think of no better way for the current students to honor the memory of those who died in 1999 than to build a safe bonfire and strive to bring it back to campus. Thank you Student Bonfire from an Old Ag.

I distrust politicians too, but if the county really wanted to squash Bonfire, they could do it without a bunch of cloak and dagger nonsense. I just chalk this up the small town, inept, public officials.

Could they really, Burdizzo? You underestimate the quiet support of Bonfire. If officials had taken any action to stop Bonfire from burning outright they would have seen some serious political retributions.

Someone told me, and I believe it, that the Governor had sent the Grays some congratulatory cigars. I believe it. I know a couple of years ago a certain commissioner for a powerful office made a few phone calls to let the whole aggie family go out to bonfire.

I agree with 3rd Gen. These guys are smart enough to know that their only chance to stop bonfire is underhanded legal manuevering like this.

I still think you guys are paranoid and fabricating conspiracies where there are none.

Mr. Borden,

Your editorial invoking the names of the twelve students who perished in the Bonfire tragedy of 1999 was in very poor taste.

Using the dead to push your agenda and create sensationalist bite is far more offensive and disrespectful than students working hard all semester, taking necessary precautions during contruction and burn, and accepting the citations for violating the burn ban.

Shame on you and your paper for publishing such amateur and repulsive writing.

- Doug Keegan '99
Austin, TX

The District Judge would not have held up his right hand and said "This finger was broken when a log was dropped on it while I was working on Bonfire. Keep it safe and accept the concequences of your actions. Injunction lifted" if he had some kind of "agenda."

I was there for the whole process and even got to testify on behalf of ASB. They were just going through the motions to cover their own butts. The DA didn't care one way or the other about the injunction. They just wanted peace.

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

Good luck getting that published. Borden is an arrogant, ignorant, putz who doesn't like being called out. if there is a cause in town he doesn't like he will find the worst written letters from those who support it just to make them look bad.

I figured as much. There's a reason why he's the editor at a paragon of journalism like The Eagle.

my $0.02: (edit: and I am not discussing the legalities and jerking around after the injunction; I believe that SB should have capitulated with the original injunction to not burn, to do the right thing.)

While I support the main goal of Student Bonfire, and want Bonfire back on campus, if I lived anywhere near HRH I would be pissed off too. And I believe that they have every right to be.

Burn bans exist for a reason. That reason is to protect OTHERS from the reckless act of starting ANY fire no matter the size when the ground is like tinder, as it is now.

The leaders of Student Bonfire wanted this bonfire to burn so badly that they scoffed at the law and burned it anyway. And what makes me the most sick is the arrogance shown by these individuals, like already mentioned.

This impatient group of people wants what they want and they want it NOW no matter the cost, and as evident this weekend, as long as they know that SOMEONE is going to pay for the punishment (in money or whatever), they have no problem committing the crime. That is not what laws are about, especially ones that impact someone other than onesself.

Everyone loves going out and drinking on New Year's Eve. And say they all drove home drunk. "Well, it's just new year's eve, it's not like we do this every day." Just because your reckless act is "special" does not make it any less reckless.

I believe in Student Bonfire. But their behavior WAS bratty, it was arrogant, and inconsiderate to their community. Not Aggie-like at all. They should have sucked it up and waited, as painful as it can be.

I would be much more eager to donate money if they had done the right thing for the whole community, not behaved like renegades, and waited. And I guarantee they would have had even more community support than they do right now.

[This message has been edited by YankeeAg00 (edited 11/22/2005 3:33p).]

Good responses OldYeller, Buildthehell, and Keegan!

Waited until when? There were 5000 Aggies who had made plans to attend the event. If it were moved to Thursday, it would have conflicted with the University yell practice. If it were delayed until the burn ban was over, it may not be lit until January and would be pointless. Lastly, there were numerous factions that were scheduled to operate on Saturday that might not have been able to do so at a later date.

Why not blame the county? They waited until the 11th hour to file the injunction. They had been notified MONTHS in advance that there would be a large fire on November 19th. It wasn't a mystery.

The thing is that the leaders did everything that they could, including asking a local judge if anything else needed to be done, and were still ticketed. They now know to get a lawyer, and at least 4 have stepped forward and offered their services. Lesson learned, fines to be imposed, hands slapped, and the group is moving on with a greater understanding of how to do it next year.

If next year's leadership does not heed the lessons from this year, then shame on them. For now, don't spank a puppy for not knowing algebra.

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

quote:

---

They should have sucked it up and waited, as painful as it can be.

---

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

The students acted in good faith by communicating with the judge for months. The judge screwed up.

To doom Student Bonfire with financial disaster isn't right, either.

quote:

---

Just because your reckless act is "special" does not make it any less reckless.

---

No, but having the fire department on hand and taking every reasonable precaution DOES make it less reckless.

In fact, one could argue that considering the setting and precautions, Student Bonfire under a burn ban is less dangerous than uncontrolled brush fires without a burn ban.

[This message has been edited by Keegan99 (edited 11/22/2005 3:49p).]

Opie, good response. That is why I said the local official did the wink, wink thing and let it burn.

I also think some realy hate Bonfire and there there is not a place in the county that someone will not complain if it is put.

Terrible sentence above.

If it had not burned--chances of never having another one go up hugely since in the fall in Texas we are under burn bans more years than not.

Now they will get the lawyers and hopefull proactively get exemptions to burn bans in place just in case one is inacted.

Exactly how close did the embers get to your house, ldy?

I love creating this paranoia for no reason.

[This message has been edited by AB2 (edited 11/22/2005 3:48p).]

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?

quote:

---

Everyone loves going out and drinking on New Year's Eve. And say they all drove home drunk. "Well, it's just new year's eve, it's not like we do this every day." Just because your reckless act is "special" does not make it any less reckless.

---

I'd argue that your analogy is overly simplistic and leaves out several important details. It would be much closer to the truth if you called the police in September letting them know that you would be driving a party bus full of drunk people around on New Years Eve. And while you would take precautions to be careful, the place that you were celebrating the New Year had a 5 drink minimum. But the police told you that it was alright for you to drive the bus because it was a special evening.

But then on December 31, you read in your local paper that the city has determined that you are NOT allowed to drive. But the bus had been rented and people had already made travel arrangements/plans based on the promise from the police. So you take your chances that nothing bad will happen knowing that if you are pulled over you will get a ticket. Irresponsible, maybe, but you don't really have any options. Celebrating New Years on Jan 15th doesn't work too well.