All praise []107!

All praise []107!

truth hurts, doesn't it?

yeah, generally what you do on a forum..post your thoughts, right?

well...so long as they align with the other posters of the forum. If they don't, you better shut the hell up. Or else you might not be an Aggie, or an idiot, or gay, or a troll, or whatever else you folks call people who don't see things your way.

If there's one thing I do admire about some of ya, it's your ability to tow the organizational line and not step out of it, much less dare to have your own opinion. You guys are gonna make excellent drones for some big ass corporation one day, that's awesome.

There is no organizational line. If there was one, it would be: "don't do stupid ****."

That annoying free will gets in the way though and arguments here fall pretty close to violating that "line".

Scott Coker '92

lord knows y'all don't do stupid ****...

maybe I was wrong about towing the line.

Maybe it wasn't the "line" so much as it was...ah, carrying on the revisionary legacy of bonfire.

And no, that's not a good thing.

I had to wade through quite a bit to get to the heart of your arguement... I think it is best embodied with this quote:

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. 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.

---

Lets break it down: The multi-tiered stack of logs had been built twice as high in the past and very successfully for 90 years. These mitigants gave them reassurance that '99 would be no different than the 89 Bonfires before it.

Built solely by students; with an advisors in what they thought was the same manner as the years before.

Alcohol: That was a known occurance that was hidden from prying eyes most of the time. The culture perpetuated its use during construction, but most knew it was a dumb idea. I never worked on anything regarding Bonofire while drunk, I'm sure it was done by someone somewhere, and they were dumb for doing so.

A few accidents: What construction project by semi-inexperienced people doesn't have accidents? I work on Habitat for Humanity every other weekend and there are accidents there. Should we stop building houses for the poor?

They were aware of most of these problems, but mitigated them out on the afore mentioned (sp) facts. Nobody thought it would fall down, and I think that is the only thing we have agreed on so far. They let it continue for the same reason they allow(ed) students to do 1000 other things: The reward was worth more than the known risks.

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

Just an FYI...

Lead-Acid Batteries make rather large explosions...

If you'd like a different example, an example with a little more "danger" involved...one that might be a little more life threatening...

-----
A few years back a friend of mine was involved in a rather serious motorcycle accident. After he was patched up and recovered, he decided to rebuild the bike himself as he had helped build and rebuild motorcycles for years, so he thought he knew enough to do it.

While he was looking it over and ordering parts, a few others and I mentioned to him to thouroughly inspect the forks, and to make sure absoultely nothing was wrong with them...if there was he should replace them completely.

After he got done building the bike, he started driving it again...drove it for weeks without a problem. One day we get another call...he wrecked his bike again. Upon inspectin of the vehicle, it was very clear that the forks had split and caused him to lose control.

After he regained conciousness enough to talk to people he told us about how it had wobbled a little bit one day while driving 6, but he'd thought nothing of it...
---

It's a safe bet that if he knew the outcome before the events...he would have done things different.

Terry, comparisons are a useful tool when your audience may not be able to relate to the actual events at hand...they are an analogy...using an analogy, one can compare events that many may not have first hand experience with to events that a majority of the general public can relate to...but it is just that...a close representation...if it was exact, there would be no need for the analogy.

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 2/22/2007 2:18p).]

I will apologize for the gay reference, it was unnecessary and in appropriate. It was made mostly out of annoyance with you common theme in most threads. It seems your reoccurring theme "No one is answering my question," seems to be rooted more by the fact that no one is giving you the answer you want. I usually find it difficult to answer with an answer I do not agree with. Most of the persons on this board are the die-hard ASB "drones" and most are in agreement with the others here. They/we and probably you as well do not enjoy the feeling that all your typing and discussion seems to be "banging your head against the wall."

I do understand that most bonfire types seem to be stubborn and set in there ways, however, the UPPER leadership of present day bonfire continuously assesses and documents all things that they think are and/or will be relevant for years to come. You may see it as a problem that not everyone knows everything, but all leadership is informed of all information deemed relevant, and questions are welcomed and usually answered.

_________________
And WillD, good point, if you have an additional thought that was not spurred by a response to your post, there is an EDIT tool for you to fix or add to your thought.


[This message has been edited by preshy boy (edited 2/22/2007 2:59p).]

Opie, I understand the point(s) you are arguing. However, your safety argument is flawed. Just because a "major" accident had not occured yet, does not make something safe.

People find it difficult to answer questions they don't like the answer to, so quite often they avoid answering the question at all. Which is entirely possible in a communication medium like this. Instead of answering some uncomfortable questions or addressing some unsettling issues, people all too often resort to: "Square's a troll!" Well that's nice and all that you think that, but it doesn't address the point. And just like the few people bumping multiple threads yesterday in an attempt to sink the thread I was talking in, skipping over points in a discussion and resorting to name-calling and opie's personal favorite "ad hominem" attacks only serves to bury the original message. You guys are successful in that.

Paul, being stubborn and closed-minded is not something to necessarily be proud of. That, in my opinion, is one of ASB's biggest obstacles to try and clear. But it appears that new challenges are on the horizon, best of luck in dealing with those things. But like I've said in several threads several times, an organization's "culture" is it's front-porch, to reference Sec. Defense Gates. Previous Bofire culture led to tragedy, current culture often times leads people to believe the things i've expressed. Remember, it's not all about what you're doing, it's how you're doing it.

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 2/22/2007 3:34p).]

[]1,

quote:

---

Just because a "major" accident had not occured yet, does not make something safe.

---

I never said Bonfire was safe. Just because my 9mm Beretta hasn't shot anyone yet doesn't make it "safe" either. I climbed all around and atop stack in '99 (and every OCB since) and am not too man enough to admit that I was scared. 40+ feet is a long way down, and there weren't any ropes that attached you to anything solid. Slip on a poorly cut log or a bundle of wire, and you were screwed. Ask anyone involved with pre-'99 Bonfires and they'll tell you the same. Bonfire was dangerous back then.

What I am saying is that the Administration didn't know HOW dangerous Bonfire really was, and there isn't any way to prove otherwise.

(I'm not trying to tell you that you were too young to participate or know here, but) The culture of Bonfire pre-99 was all "need to know" and "shut up and carry that log". It was a dangerous culture, but I never saw Dr. Bowen out there shouldering a log and investigating exactly how dangerous it was. The Admin got reports, chipped in some money, and looked at stack as they drove to work each day. They didn't dive into the culture or investigate the structure because they felt like, in the grand scheme, all was well.

Lastly, I can make an arguement without resorting to telling someone they are an "idiot", "stuck back in college", "ignorant", or degrading their friends (who would gladly take a bat to your skull if asked to). My only statement that could be construed as "name calling" was when I identified you as the type of person who throws stones at a bee-hive just to watch the swarm, aka a "Troll". From what I have read on this forum, you exhibit all the characteristics of a Troll, so I called it like I saw it. You stir the pot for fun, use ad hominem arguements, and ignore facts in favor of opinions; all things that a "troll" would do.

If you want to have your arguements taken seriously, please avoid acting like a troll.

quote:

---

current culture often times leads people to believe the things i've expressed.

---

since when do you refer to yourself as "people"?

...edited because I had too much to drink and wasn't thinking rationally. "Speak when you are upset (or drunk) and you will give the greatest speech you will ever regret".

Sorry.

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 2/23/2007 12:43a).]

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 2/23/2007 8:13a).]

[This message has been edited by opie03 (edited 2/23/2007 10:33a).]

It's foolish to think that I don't speak the opinion of others when I say that current bonfire culture has led to the negative opionions. Look no farther than the DISBANDING of Moses Hall, rather drastic action on behalf of the university and RHA against northside and bonfire culture.

Your 9mm is dangerous if you don't know how to use it. Guns aren't like pitbulls wandering the streets, they can be controlled and regulations and laws are in place to see to it. If a comparison had to be made, Bonfire was more the pitbull than the gun. I'm hesitant to make a comparison, but it seems that's the language you all speak.

quote:

---

(who would gladly take a bat to your skull if asked to).

---

your friends would assault somebody with a bat over a matter of opinion? That's awesome, you should be proud. I'll be sure to warn those pesky international students on their way home at night. I'm not sure whether to take that as a threat or you just acting like a jackass, but regardless, that was a pretty dumb thing to say.

You call it like you see it, I'll call it like I see it. And I see you and your ilk as the type who avoids dicey situations (questions) at all costs and avoids having to question my own situation for fear that it may reveal some things about the organization or either yourself that you're not terribly proud to own up to. If I need to be one of the two, I'd much rather be what you call a "troll" who asks tough questions and doesn't back down when faced with tough words and lame ass e-threats such as your bat comment.

Weak.

It's too late to see what you typed and later went back to edit, but it must have made you feel really cool, I'm sorry I missed that. I hope your buddies caught it and told you how awesome you were though.

*edit for typo

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 2/23/2007 4:18a).]

To be perfectly honest, people make these "stupid, irrelevent" comparisons solely to illustrate their particular ideas/opinions in a manner where some common understanding can be given to an abstract thought. It is purely the essence of what you earlier described as your overall goal, attempting to "understand others opinions through tough questions." When they give an honest answer, and you are more than welcome to question the reasoning, but there is no "bad/stupid answer" only their private opinion which they feel best describes how they perseve an issue/solution. If you wholly want to know others' perceptions, look no further than these comparisons.

Personal experience and even memories are powerful tools to link people on an emotional level. Those times you share with others are permanently a part of your perception as to how things are. The problem is that when a group of people don't share these memories, they make comparisons. They hope to liken a certain incident or event that they DO share to make a similar connection. These comparisons are ineffective though when perceptions differ.

This is not the definitive case for why there are disagreements and ultimately anonmosity in threads like this, but it may be a contributing factor. Mainly, the disparagy in the comparisons made for parts or the whole of Bonfire come from a lack of any intermediary grounds we can liken to it. Plus perception and what your memories emphasize are strong factors in what you equate Bonfire to. I personally fail to conjure an event or activity that perfectly describes the gravity appropriate to Bonfire as a whole and its many diverse aspects. I agree people can certainly go to far (it's easy to) and can certainly be off base, but hey that is the best way they know how to describe their feelings.

So your personal experience and memories regarding Bonfire can be likened to a dead car battery, dying in a place crash, high school football, and getting struck by lightening?

These are the comparisons I'm referring to in saying that such comparisons are absurd, illogical, and cheapen Bonfire.

If you told me...being up on stack such and such a night was like the first tiem I did something with somebody and it was amazing and I can't even describe it to be honest...That would be a more accurate comparison. But here people aren't comparing their memories of Bonfire, they're likening it's risks to a dead car battery and playing high school football.

quote:

---

But here people aren't comparing their memories of Bonfire, they're likening their ability to forsee all of its risks to being able to predict that you will have a dead car battery and knowing that you are going to drop dead playing high school football.

---

fify

I didn't need it fixed for me, what I said is what I meant, and what I said is what I observed.

Weak attempt.

Have any of y'all ever eaten Frog Legs?

I want to try them but I don't know what they taste like. And don't say they taste like chicken, everything taste like chicken. Do not liken the taste to anything, I want an exact discription that will describe ONLY the taste of frog legs.

They taste pretty good in my opinion. But in the words of Kermit, "All I can picture is thousands of little frogs walking around on crutches."

Even weaker.

quote:

---

They taste pretty good in my opinion. But in the words of Kermit, "All I can picture is thousands of little frogs walking around on crutches."

---

Square...why do you post on the bonfire board?

Simple question. Should be easy to answer.

You're right, it is a simple question and answer.

Because I feel like I have another point of view to bring to the table, and I sometimes wonder if any of the things I'm concerned with and the things people not involved with bonfire are concerned with ever cross the mind of those up to their eyeballs in all things ASB. It's interesting to get different perspectives on things. What better way to gain information about anything then to engage in conversation about it?

I post here the same reason you post here, or the same reason anybody posts on TexAgs. Aside from the fact that TexAgs is pretty addicting, and arguing/toying around with you folks is even MORE addicting. Also, it provides a FORUM to discuss things with people...whether they agree or disagree, it provides that medium. I don't care if you agree with me, you don't care if I agree with you, but if I see something in a different light or you see something differently, then something has been accomplished. And even if that's not the case, well then at least you've spoken your mind. If you're implying that I should avoid posting here because my opinions don't align with your's and your buddies, well then I'd say it would do you well to go into things with a more open mind.

Pretty straightforward, right?

What exactly was "even weaker?"

quote:

---

Aside from the fact that TexAgs is pretty addicting, and arguing/toying around with you folks is even MORE addicting.

---

Was it just for the purpose of adding to your reputation on this forum(whether deserved or not), that you added "toying" into your reason for being here?

I usually understand the purpose of your initial statement or even reply. Some of the posters on this forum are level headed, but when you continue to argue for the sake of arguing, and not for the greater good (our interpretation), Most of your points whether valid or not, get lost.


[This message has been edited by preshy boy (edited 2/27/2007 9:50p).]

Even weaker was the frog legs antecdote.

My reputation on this forum doesn't validate or qualify my reasons for posting. I post here just for the reasons I stated, I thought it was pretty clear and direct. Razzing you guys and playing off of some of your irrationalities makes it that much more enjoyable, but to be honest, I really just like to educate myself more about everything really.

quote:

---

Some of the posters on this forum are level headed

---

Some are not, a lot are not. Surely you can see where I derive my enjoyment from.

Paul, for the record...you seem to actually be more rational and level headed than others. Perhaps that comes with age...though...that might be too quick an assumption to make across the board.

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. 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.

---

Your statement here and your entire premise (if I understand it correctly) is somewhat illogical.

It seems as if you believe that the University knew there were problems with Bonfire and did nothing about them (based on another of your posts) and should have done something about these problems to prevent 99. But then you state that the University did not believe these problems would lead to the collapse. If you believe both of these statements, aren't the University's actions very reasonable?

Likewise, since you seem to agree that the University did not believe the problems would lead to a collapse, aren't you really agreeing with the posters who stated that the University did not foresee all risks associated with this event (much like the comparative analogies cited by previous posters)?

While I don't like to label someone a troll, as an impartial observer (I'm neither pro- or anti-Bonfire) you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing since implicit in your posts is an agreement with the ideas presented by your opponents. That is trollish behavior.



On a related note, there is really very little evidence that the University was aware at all of the inherent structural dangers with Bonfire as it was built in the late 90's. Most of the documented complaints/warnings about this issue are Batt Mail Call's or their equivalent. In hindsight, any engineer can see the major flaws in the design, but most people weren't looking for these flaws before the collapse. As a previous poster noted, 90 years of successful operation was judged sufficient proof to preclude a structural analysis. The 94 collapse was actually cited (at the time) as evidence of Bonfire's safety since the structure did not come apart under the enormous stresses put on it. This mindset is why no one saw the obvious looming problems.

As far as the alcohol issue, the University was aware of that and judged it to be a sufficient danger that they promoted anti-alcohol campaigns. These campaigns were not as enforced as they should have been at least in part due to a culture of acceptable social drinking at the highest levels (Bowen, Sherrill, et al. sharing drinks with redpots for example).

All of these factors point to a University culture that was not aware of the risks, rather than one that ignored obvious risks. Consider it unconscious tunnel vision.

quote:

---

Because I feel like I have another point of view to bring to the table

---

You are banging your head against the wall Sq 1. The people on this board don't want nor appreciate another point of view. Yet they don't realize that it's that mentality that led them to where they are today.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[This message has been edited by Office Linebacker (edited 3/21/2007 12:43p).]

OL, the leadership of Bonfire today is very open to different opinions. We just wish to have them brought to us in logical manner, thought out, and in person. Any idiot can argue on the internet.

If there is a problem, cite it and offer a suggestion on how to improve (SQ 1). Stiring up sheet for the sake of stiring it up does no-one any good.

Since SQ 1 has become such a pain in the ass on this board, the board has mostly died. Now there is a very limited discussion because of all the treads gettind derailed (such as this one).

The leadership of Bonfire accepts input and values it, as long as it is just ranting to rant.

As for how Bonfire lasted so long, 90 years of something working tend to give you confidence in it.

-- Slim

Well said OL, I think that just about sums up all of my activity on this board, and as for you Slim, well you just prove the point that OL made.

Just because others who bring differing views don't use the logic you use and make statements that aren't in line with your's or your organization's doesn't mean they're inarticulate and not well thought out.

As for now, I'll just keep banging my head on that wall, people have listened, and what I've wanted to accomplish has been accomplished, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Don't agree? Read the pages upon pages upon pages of discussion...

And as far as the assumption that activity has died because of my postings...that'd absurd, nice one though. Have a good day!

I am feeling sporty today, so I'll respond.

Have YOU outlined a problem and given a solution?

I'm not talking about some veiled attack at the leadership about 'nobody listens to me', but I am talking about real issues, with real solutions.

Give me some specifics and I will happily debate and impliment if they are valid concerns.

Specific reasons or personal implications aside SqOne, the forum seemed to have a lot more diverse discussion and general activity this time last year... it doesn't now.

oh, and it used to have new information or discussions... those sort of things come at a trickle now-a-days.

[This message has been edited by DoctorSnoball (edited 3/21/2007 3:35p).]

Diverse discussion? Are you kidding me? What sort of diversity might you be referring to? That's a good one.