quote:

---

the a&m skydiving club is a univ sponsored organization,

---

Does it still exist? I haven't heard about them in years.

I don't know if it's still around, but stuact still lists them as an organization.

couldn't have said it better txrebel and aftermath.........

Time is working against us.

Entering freshmen this year were in the 6th grade the year Bonfire fell. How long will it be before we have undergraduates with no first hand memory of Bonfire.

I don't want to be a pessimist, but I don't think we'll see another on-campus Bonfire for a long, long time if at all.

It has nothing to do with tu politics. It has to do with the fact that doing anything on campus while litigation is unsettled is STUPID. It opens the University up for a pounding in court. I've talked to members of the TABA - some of the sharpest and most redass Ags you'll meet - and they agree with the University's position.

quote:

---

yes, Perry used to be an Aggie...but he's not anymore, I'm starting to question his ability to call himself a Texan.

---

Bullshiite. Perry wants Bonfire back. I've talked to him myself.

[This message has been edited by Keegan99 (edited 9/28/2006 8:32p).]

Keegan, my opinion of Perry has absolutly nothing to do with Bonfire. I do agree that having him in office is not a bad thing for Bonfire, but that's the line.

I like the disownership of those who have dissenting points of view... "He's not an Aggie..." That's classy.

"An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do"

I base my stance on the lie and steal part of the Aggie Honor code. Research the Trans Texas Corridor if you are still confused.

<quote>Is it a "personal agenda" to hold a group responsible for the danger you believe they allowed your child to be exposed to that resulted in your child's death? If you let your kids go to a daycare, and the daycare sponsored an event at playtime (organized and led by the kids, of course), and as a result, your child died... wouldn't you want the daycare to be held responsible?
</quote>

This is college not a daycare!! I talked to my older brother(FTACO '96) who built bonfire all 4 years and he had the same feeling in pre '99 days as I do when I build the hell now.

Your not a kid anymore, you partake in dangerous acts everyday. When you decide you want to cut and build you know theres a danger that goes along with that. (Just as if you join the forces you should expect there's a chance you might get shot!) Nowone is forcing you to go. I've even told my parents I know there is a risk of getting injured and if I do it's my fault nobody elses and nobody else should have to pay for that.

I guess the way I see it is yes the University might have known that Bonfire was unsafe but they didn't tell everybody go cut and build or else!!!

Also don't get me wrong I have alot of respect for those that were injured and especially those that died. I however have very little respect for those that choose to sue till the end, and I have even less respect for the damn ambulance chasing lawyers!!

Build the hell 2006

Bonfire '99 YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED

College students drive ,bungi jump,scuba dive,have sex,ski,swim,play sports,etc.,etc.,etc. . All of these activities result in many deaths each and every year.You don't see them being stopped because of threats of law suits.Texas A&M has swimming pools,streets,sports fields,dorms,etc. There is always a danger in certain activities.POLITICS is the ONLY reason we don't have BONFIRE!! You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Red, the university isn't saying you can't build a bonfire and participate in all the traditions, pagentry, and all that good stuff, they're just saying you can't use their property to do so. I don't find that entirely unreasonable, especially due to that fact that because they facilitated and allowed the building on bonfire on their campus by their students they now are paying, quite literally, for it.

quote:

---

the university isn't saying you can't build a bonfire and participate in all the traditions, pagentry, and all that good stuff

---

In some ways they do.
1. Corps - Pressure has been put on them to not attend. Some required events planned on Bonfire days. Early CQ on Burn night.

2. Fish/Howdy/T Camp not allowed to promote Bonfire.

3. Many more organizations that can't promote it.

By A&M not allowing the promoting of Bonfire, they try to hold it down. A lot of Fish don't know about Bonfire when they come and most don't know about Student Bonfire. And A&M wants it that way.

Redag, you are welcome to read the next sentence I wrote after the ones you quoted. Did you take quoting lessons from the Batt?

[This message has been edited by ChBass (edited 10/2/2006 1:09p).]

quote:

---

1. Corps - Pressure has been put on them to not attend. Some required events planned on Bonfire days. Early CQ on Burn night.

---

Don't attribute to intention that could easily be attributed to mere coincidence. November is the season for Corps brass, and that is an extremely challenging time if you haven't experienced it first-hand.

quote:

---

2. Fish/Howdy/T Camp not allowed to promote Bonfire.

3. Many more organizations that can't promote it.

---

If the University allowed its sponsored (read: SUBSIDIZED and SUPPORTED) organizations boost off-campus Bonfire, aTm could easily be held liable for any incidents that may occur. Just like the State is held liable for the actions of it's Sherriffs, TAMU is responsible for what Fish Camp, Management Society, and the Corps does.

As for the actions, it's like the 2nd and 3rd strike rules for most legal infractions. The first occurance is a learning lesson. The second and third times, you knew better and deserve to have the book thrown at you. The University doesn't want to risk having the book thrown at them.

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

Gracias for the clarification Opie

CH..

Now that you mention it, that is a Batt standard of quoting..

It however wasn't a personal attack on your post I simply used it to help make my point, it was more of an attack on the damn lawyers that choose to tie up our courts and help in keeping the building of Bonfire from being on campus.

[This message has been edited by REDAG07 (edited 10/3/2006 3:12p).]

I hate to say it, but this attitude of do at all costs no metter what is the exact cause that led to the Bonfire tragedy- and the ultimately demise of a very unique and valuable tradition at Texas A&M.

There were warning signs for years that corners were being cut, safety was not being monitored and managed properly, no freshmen on the stack- and the actual construction itself.

We are all responsible for what happened- whether we were there that early morning or not. We saw things that we knew were not right happening- including drinking at the site- and never once said "STOP THIS IS WRONG". We had our chances for years- and let bad behavior and practices continue- and even get worse.

Now, we are paying a sad price for our failures to adequately and properly monitor/manage ourselves and processes.

You can be one of two things. You can be an Aggie, or you can be a graduate of Texas A&M, Perry, Bowen, and Sutherland all fall under Texas A&M Graduate not Texas Aggie

Maybe I'm confused about this once an Aggie, always an Aggie thing?

Those guys are as much Aggies as you and I, even though you don't always agree with them or what they do.

the

quote:

---

once an Aggie, always an Aggie thing

---

only works if you were "once an Aggie"

Perry?

Perry can't even keep Texans happy...it's really hard to be a "Fightin' Texas Aggie" if you're not a Texan or an Aggie.

Perry is after votes...if he can buy votes by claiming to be an Aggie, then crafish and never do anything to follow the claim of being an Aggie, he will, and he will continue to get votes. If Aggies realize that Perry is not a good Texan, and the Aggie claim is BS, he will be gone come January.

I think it's such BS when people denounce others for not being Texans or Aggies just because they disagree with their personal outlook or views about things.

case & point...

is anybody for the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Soooo...because he proposed an idea you don't agree with, he is no longer an Aggie? Cool.

he proposed, and plans to see through, an idea that alienates a long line of families straight through the middle of Texas. Creating a large gash through the heart of Texas which negates all of the rural Texas promotions that are going on. It disregards any of the landowners wishes while any opposition have little to no opportunity to do anything about it..."why?" you ask...because of money...it seems that Perry can afford better legal representation on the state's dollar than a small time cattle farmer can from what he made selling bales of coastal and cotton.

I am one of many that do not agree with this plan...we're known as Texans.

[This message has been edited by Ag_E Aggie (edited 10/22/2006 9:18p).]

Again I ask you, because he proposed an idea that may be unpopular to you or many, that makes him no longer an Aggie? Bush's ideas aren't very popular with many folks right now, is he no longer an American? Does it take a majority vote to remove somebody's citizenship as an Aggie or an American these days?

"What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right"

I learned that in the 6th grade, perhaps you could take a note from that.

I'm not saying the TTC is right. There were MANY a few decades back that didn't think allowing women into this University was right either. Is Rudder no longer an Aggie based on this?

Surely it is not really possible to compare Perry stripping land from families to Rudder deciding to let women into a major university during the time the ERA came to be...

for the record, since this is in the bonfire forum, perry was a redpot. he prolly had a tinge of aggie in him at that point

No but it IS possible to make the comparison that just because you don't agree with somebody doesn't mean they can't be a part of something that you're a part of.

How about Lincoln in his time? Kennedy in his? MLK? Bush? FDR?

Lots of people didn't agree with those people. Some of them spent a LOT of money on what many considered to be worthless. Which of them lose their citizenship?

Their calls were a LOT more important than the TTC and impacted a LOT more people.

Including Lincoln in that list of names is just wrong...

Kennedy and MLK fought for equal rights for all races,
FDR for equal for women,
Bush is fighting for the safety of our country & the spread of democracy.

Lincoln did what...Forced half a nation to live by laws that were not in their best interest?

If you were trying to imply anything about slaves... go do some reading that was not required by an elementary or high school...or go have a chat with the History board

quote:

---

Soooo...because he proposed an idea you don't agree with, he is no longer an Aggie? Cool.

---

even though i normally disagree with the things SquareOne has posted... I wholeheartedly agree with this. He is still an Aggie through and through no matter what you guys say. He proposed a plan that many people didn't like, that doesn't make him an less of an Aggie though, I can't even believe people would say that.

Hell, GVA is an Aggie and I sure as hell don't agree with alot of the decisions that he made.

Rebel, that was a very dumb post.

Lincoln just fought to unite the country, I know, it's kind of small, but some people thought it was a real big deal. And regardless of the reason, he did liberate a lot of people. But Lincoln united the country. Laws are rarely in people's best interest...by the way. That was just a really dumb comment. As a senior history major, I would venture to say I've done a pretty fair amount of reading beyond the elementary level.

And what does "FDR for equal for women" mean anyways?

Rob, appreciate the support. See even though we disagree on things, I still think he's an Aggie, and he thinks I'm one too. Hell, I'd go so far as to say I even think of him as an American!

I got Teddy and Franklin backwards...Teddy was the one that let women vote...

King Lincoln did not necessairly "unite" a nation, as he did force one side into submisison with thousands of immigrant lives.