Bonfire was before my time and unfortunately I never got to see it. I'm shocked that it lasted until 1999, though. Why would a university take on so much liability?

You're committing the historian's fallacy. Prior to the collapse, the university was pretty complacent about the dangers.

A&M pre-99 was very different place than the place you know.

No kidding Lew...

heck...

A&M in 2005 was very different than the place you know now...

quote:

---

Why would a university take on so much liability?

---

There is risk involved in everything we do, and some of those risks aren't exposed until there is either an independent research project or an accident (leading to an investigation that exposes faults, errors, shortcomings, and design flaws). Even then, we mitigate the risks of an adverse situation and act according to our perception of that risk. I could get hit by lightning when I walk out to my truck to go to lunch, but I'm willing to take that risk for the reward of a meal.

You can indemnify yourself from most of those risks with specific insurance, but you can't prevent acts of God or crazy people. You also can't indemnify yourself from that which is not known to be a risk.

On-Campus Bonfire was a unique project with a limited dissimination (or investigation) of risks. Aspects of its construction changed over 90 years. Without a "department of lessons learned" or written blueprints with process (Venn) diagrams and explanations of the "why" and "how"; risks increased without anyone's knowledge.

Early on, it was a pile of sticks. In the '40s, it was a big pile of sticks. In the late '60s it was a huge engineered pile of logs with safety sets, buried logs, guide wires, etc. Somewhere in the late 80s and early 90s the formula for a structurally sound Bonfire was lost and nobody knew it. Only after the collapse in '99 was it 100% evident that the stack wasn't as stout as previous years.

The University had no knowledge of the growing risk involved with the (then) current construction of Bonfire, and therefore did not indemnify themselves of that risk. They essentially took on the liability of a project that was risky without their knowledge. It had been built for 89 years without serious collapse or evidence of such; so they were not suspect of one on the 90th build.

Just like the guy who sneezed in the theatre in the movie "Outbreak", he didn't know he was doing something risky that would end up killing people. Had he known better, he wouldn't have sneezed or would have done so into a safe manner.

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

So are you saying the university wasn't aware of the risk associated with Bonfire? Or perhaps the university was well aware of it and turned the other way?

I am much more inclined to believe the latter.

I am saying that I think the University wasn't aware of ALL the risks associated with Bonfire. I guess that's a pretty pointless statement because it is impossible to know all the risks associated with anything, but I hope you get my point.

As for your inclination, both of us are more likely to be able to read Chinese Braile than we are to know the minds of University administrators pre 1999. Southerland was shady as hell...


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

quote:

---

heck...

A&M in 2005 was very different than the place you know now...

---

I'm curious as to what makes you say that. Now, 2002, with off-campus Bonfire being started, the massive fee hike, Gates and Van Alstyne taking office, and R.C. getting canned; that was a year that changed A&M. But, AFAICR, the next few years were rather uneventful.

Gates is gone, PTTS has found new ways to screw customers over, there are more people that camp out for a basketball game than for a game at Kyle...Ross is acutally being worked on, and there's people trying to change the College of Agriculture's name...

i hope yall know that this poster is a hardcore troll on other boards....

quote:

---

I hope ya'll know... troll

---

I remember. He exibited perfect "troll" etiquite with his closing comment "I am much more inclined to believe the latter."

I'm glad you think the University is out to kill you, Square One.

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

how dumb. I merely said that the university wasn't willing to take up measures to fix all the problems, if you agree with the first situation, than you're saying the university was ignorant of any problems associated with Bonfire.

Which are you more inclined to believe? That the university didn't even know there was problems associated with Bonfire or that the university was aware of these problems and neglected to take enough measures to fix them all?

Oh, and walton, what other boards might you be referring to?

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 2/20/2007 5:09p).]

actually i was talking about the original poster, sul

with the Universities primary imput and output around bonfire being monitary, I am not suprised that they were not aware when the stack was stacked more vertical, when super sets were not added, when logs were not sunk, when logs were stacked too soon, etc, etc, etc,

They did know that a 109' stack of logs was dangerous, hence the limit of the height. But with out profesional staff on hand, they didn't know many of the details that investigations showed to be heavy factors.

Thanks for clearing that up Walton.

quote:

---

how dumb

---

Emotionally charged ad hominem attacks: Sign #1 of a troll.

If I could have predicted that my truck battery was going to die this morning, I would have purchased a new one yesterday. Reasonable people work to fix problems if they can predict them. I admit that I did not heed the warnings given to me (a weak chirp from the alarm system, slow to start, etc.) that could have clued me in to have the electrical system looked at by a professional. I am not a professional auto tech and I don't pretend to be one but if I was, these signs could have been predictors to a number of problems that either aren't there or have yet to manifest themselves in an obvious manner (faulty wiring, bad programming, malfunctioning alarm, starter problems, etc.). Either way, I really didn't have the right information to properly diagnose the cause of the symptoms and the vehicle was operating up to my expectations prior to the battery dying.

There was no realistic way for me to prevent my vehicle from being stranded (because of a dead battery) and no way to predict what exactly these very small hints pointed to in a 6-year old vehicle. Even with a battery gauge installed on the dash and an amp meter displayed on my radar detector, there was no indication that the battery was going bad. The juice from the alternator covered up the fact that the battery was holding less power than would be necessary to start-up next time I turned the key. I had minute (and then-ignorable) signs, monotoring devices in place, and a working knowledge of auto mechanics and I missed the prediction of the failure of the battery.

Same with On-Campus Bonfire and it's structural failure.

I guess the University Officials could have insisted on professional inspections of safety and structure of Bonfire, but they were under the impression that these were being supervised by Rusty Thompson and a done by a team of experienced engineering-minded students.

I guess they could have also insisted on monthly check-ups on the structural integrity of their office chairs and coffee-cups, but they trusted the manufacturers of these objects to create sound products. It comes down to the realization that they couldn't predict the fall, thought the safe-guards and inspections were in place, and the warnings evident in hind-sight were insufficient to predict the collapse of Bonfire.

quote:

---

how dumb

---

Yes, clearly I've fallen off my rocker and gone ballistic. I really need to learn to control my emotions and stop becoming a slave to that fierce temper of mine.

Comparing the bonfire collapse to your car battery failing are quite different, and I hope you realize that. So are Bonfire and college football, Bonfire and driving, Bonfire and flying, Bonfire and getting struck by lightening, Bonfire and waking up in the morning, and so on and so forth.

I have yet to hear any comperable action or activity to Bonfire, and maybe that in and of itself is a testament to how great Bonfire was. Right?

But to say that the university wasn't able to see any problems in a multi-tiered stack of logs taller than a good number of buildings on campus being built solely by students with alcohol on the premises and a few accidents in its past is ridiculous. You may be ignorant, but I sincerely doubt the university was nearly as ignorant. I believe they were aware of these problems and the fact that they were problems, but that they did not think these problems would lead to the catastrophy that occured in '99.

Quit trying to compare Bonfire to the other things you do during your life. Doing so substantially weakens not only your case, but the meaning, spirit, and uniqueness of Bonfire.

quote:

---

You may be ignorant

---

More Ad Hominiem. This is becoming quite a trademark of yours. Do all your posts discount the arguement at hand based on insults towards the opposition? Maybe you can start talking smack about spelling and punctuation. That'd make your points even more valid!

quote:

---

Quit trying to compare Bonfire to the other things you do during your life. Doing so substantially weakens not only your case, but the meaning, spirit, and uniqueness of Bonfire.

---

Then what do I do with such an arguement about such a unique activity? I've participated in Bonfire on and off campus for 6 years and in that time, have found quite a few parallels to things outside of Bonfire. No, not every metaphor or simile is 100% spot on, but they sure make for good illustrations of my points.

My father, a member of the class that built the tallest Bonfire in Aggie history, had the following to say:

quote:

---

I watched that stack in '99, and I did the father-son day with you at load. To me, it looked like bonfire as I had experienced it 31 years previously. But I should have known that they had lost the recipe for safety when you said you (a fish) needed wire pliers...

---

(neither of us knew at the time that my outfit was to be awarded Centerpole and we would need the pliers to do some of the stuff required of us) Continuing:

quote:

---

...the '99 stack *looked* to me (and a lot of others) like it had been built the way it was safely done in previous years, but it wasn't. You can say that the student leaders who were in charge were at fault, but they were only a little ways away from how they'd seen it done before. And so were the ones before them, and the ones before them... The real problem, in my view, was that no one in the University Administration thought it was their job to ensure that there was continuity between each year's effort, and, thus, no one to notice that they'd lost the recipe for a safe stack.

---

Nobody knew. The University was responsible for our safety, but did not know the degree of danger involved with this metamorphasized Bonfire. They are liable on the grounds that it was built on campus with aTm resources by aTm students, but they did not know how big a liability Bonfire was.

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

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 2/21/2007 3:31p).]

I just find it impossible to fathom that the university did not know how big of a liability and safety hazard Bonfire was.

Saying you are ignorant is not an insult, saying you are ignorant is saying that you simply don't know. No personal attack there. There's a hell of a lot more to what I said besides the fact that I called you ignorant. If you would read the post and not only refer to who wrote it, perhaps you could gain some valuable insight.

Opie, learn what "ad hominem". And before you go pulling out the latin and logical fallacies that you learned in ENGL 104, learn what they mean before you go off making yourself look like an idiot.

Thanks!

Oh and as for what you do with such a unique event in your life? You treat it as such and stop comparing it to trivial everyday things. I understand Bonfire is a huge part of your life and you just can't get past college and so on and so forth, but we're not talking about your feelings regarding Bonfire, we're talking about risks associated with it. Quite the difference.

I'm awaiting your next condescing response chock full of cool things you heard somebody smart once say...

quote:

---

I just find it impossible to fathom that the university did not know how big of a liability and safety hazard Bonfire was.

---

Hindsight is so convienient. So are absolutes like "impossible to fathom". You would probably also think that it was "impossible to fathom" that VW and Chevy did not know how big of a liability the first Beetle and the Corvair (respectively) were. To jog your memory, both of those vehicles blew up upon rear-end impact. OOPS! I gave another "non-Bonfire" parallell!

I'll use some "A leads to B and B leads to C, so A must lead to C" logic for you. It's got some flaws, but hear me out. If it is, as you say, "impossible" for the Admins. to not "know how big of a liability and safety hazard Bonfire was"(A), they must have then known that such a danger would end in catastrophie(B). Given that a catastrophie would bring them shame and into court as being liable for that catastrophie(C), why would anyone in their right mind allow "A" to occur? They wouldn't!

(Again with another analogy. Sorry if this is the way I think and you can't relate.) If it is impossible for you to not know that your car battery is going to be dead in the morning and you need your car to get to work, you would take action to get the car fixed before it dies or arrange other transportation prior to the batteries death. To do nothing would be "ignorant", yet you believe beyond any fathomability that this is what the Admins did. I doubt there are any who serve(d) on the Texas A&M Board of Regents who fall into that description.

I can look beyond the author for the facts in your arguements, but I can't ignore the continued use of fallacies in said statements.

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

quote:

---

It's got some flaws

---

You're right, it does.

quote:

---

To do nothing would be "ignorant"

---

Again, you're showing you don't know what the word means.

Per dictionary.com,
Ignorant:

quote:

---

lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned:

---

Failing to do something is not ignorant, it's negligent. The university is not involved in ignorance suits, it's involved in suits regarding it's negligence.

I'll provide you the definition of negligence so you know what it means when you reference it in another aimless response:
Negligent:

quote:

---

marked by insufficient care or attention

---

hth

Go away

quote:

---

Opie, learn what "ad hominem".

---

From Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

---

quote:

---

idiot

---

quote:

---

can't get past college

---

FWIW...

to some of us...Bonfire is, was, or will be an everyday thing...

hth

again, missing the point. I think that's great, be passionate about something.

I'm saying don't compare the risks associated with Bonfire with the risks associated with the things you do everyday.

another everyday comparison...

I know a guy from the class of 07 who is annoying and gay.... Square one is from the class of 07 and is annoying... he must be gay.


Opie is not comparing a car battery to bonfire. He is however comparing himself over looking signs which in hindsight were obvious tells to the final result, to the possibility that the administration might have overlooked some sign which in hindsight, were obvious tells to the final result.

Yes Bonfire was a HUGE liability, NO ONE is denying this fact. The extent of any liability can be underestimated with out continous professional supervision and imput.

you guys are either misreading what terry is saying or you are choosing to ignore it, because your argument "against" what he is saying doesn't really follow through.

quote:

---

But to say that the university wasn't able to see any problems in a multi-tiered stack of logs taller than a good number of buildings on campus being built solely by students with alcohol on the premises and a few accidents in its past is ridiculous.

---

comparing this to your truck battery dying is like comparing jumping off of the curb onto the street and jumping out of an airplane. the dangers associated with your car battery dying cannot be compared to jumping around on a stack 20 feet in the air. i think that's what terry was saying.

quote:

---

You may be ignorant, but I sincerely doubt the university was nearly as ignorant.

---

He's not calling you dumb. What he is actually doing is following up on when Opie said that one person cannot possibly know all of the dangers involved in an event like this. I don't know anything about chemical engineering, therefore I am ignorant of the subject. I don't know all of the dangers involved in bonfire, therefore I am ignorant of them. This was not a personal attack...such as ad hominem suggests. It's like saying this guy cheats on his wife, so you shouldnt listen to him when he teaches you math.






[This message has been edited by WH08PsyJayci (edited 2/21/2007 8:58p).]

quote:

---

to some of us...Bonfire is, was, or will be an everyday thing...

---

i dont that this is what he meant. he meant every day in the sense of walking, eating, doing your laundry, brushing your teeth in the morning.

true colors boys, true colors. I guess I just long for the storied "romantic" days of bonfire when it wasn't an exclusive club loaded with dbags who are deemed to have a huge ***** by those underneath them...in whichever way you so choose to take it.

I certainly wish the Bonfire of old could be restored and bring the culture with it, but unfortunately that's another time. This current culture hanging on by its fingertips will pass as 2020 comes into full swing and you boys will be left pissing and moaning just as you do now. I won't be sad to see your kind go, and I won't be sad to send my kids to a better school than the one I want to, and anybody that knows me knows that I'm damn proud of A&M.

You guys can say what you will know and make all your absurd comparisons and try to convince the world that what you're doing is what those came before you actually did, but everybody knows better, that is, everybody except you.

It's a shame, I hope the majority of you have no longterm impact on the awesome legacy of Bonfire. I've met some awesome people involved in the efforts, and I admire them for their hard work, but some of you honestly give your organization a bad name. Bad Apples.

Bad Apples, who unfortunately make the tree go rotten from time to time.

Mmmm. Rotten apples.

Now I am going to post again 'cause I thought of something else to say.

Oops. Another post 'cause I need to have more posts on this thread. 'Cause of Bonfire. And all that. Car batteries and stuff.