Posted on 07/08/2004 8:32:22 AM PDT by ppaul
No one could have stopped me from working construction when I was 14. It was illegal, I knew it and did it anyway, it was my choice.
Judging from your attitude, you might be deserving of some insults, but I think I'll just state that I'm glad I never had to work on a crew with you. You sound like you just might be a hazard to yourself and others. I have worked with individuals who held attitudes similar to yours when I was a wildland firefighter, individuals who eschewed wearing safety equipment or following safety rules knowing it was illegal, but did it anyways because it was their choice. One guy ended up with a chainsaw in his thigh (not wearing chaps); another almost lost an eye (no safety glasses); another hit a crewmate in the back of the leg with a pulaski by not maintaining proper spacing while digging line (good thing for calf-high boots); and a crew captain I worked with once (who I immediately did not trust) ended up getting the crew he was leading burned over the following season by not heeding watchout situations and by failing to follow the fire safety orders, although luckily no one was seriously injured.
By and large, safety equipment and rules exist for a reason, to provie protection in dangerous jobs.
I never endangered anyone else, just myself.
And child prostitution, if prostitution is legal in that state.
Wow, I actually agree with Poohbah on a thread.
In my former line of work, as a wildland firefighter, an individual who endangered themselves, endangered their fellow crewmembers. It is also my experience that one who so wilfully (and dare I say pridefully) flaunts safety rules, is probably more fo hazard than they they think. I'll reiterate that I am glad that I never had to work with you.
Always did and still do!
Unfortunately one of my hotrod friends did also, managed to strike a spark and went running down the street ala Michael Jackson or Richard Pryor. He survived, but lost much use of both hands, it wasn't worth it. I always paid the extra cost to use solvent afterwards, and would teach the same.
I agree that kids should learn a work ethic. I don't agree that they should be taught such an ethic by working in jobs where they pose a danger to themselves and to the others around him.
What about all the generations of parents whose kids helped out on the family farm, operating trucks, tractors and combines? Were they guilty of child abuse? Never mind that. What about the frontier parents whose kids helped fight off marauding Indians? What kind of ethics were they instilling in their children?
"What kind of ethics were they instilling in their children?"
The ones that made this country great.
The current 2 or 3 generations aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell.
I'm arguing from principle, not performance.
The whole thing boils down to a process similar to aging fine wine or meats; when is it time to set the table?
Fighting fires is insulting to nature.
As it now stands, we may only have to step aside.
I'd be more inclined to feel supportive of this guy if his wife and eldest daughter weren't the only members of the family going barefoot. That family photo sure fuels the stereotype of religious fundamentalists wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
Yep, the law of diminishing returns.
So's operating a backhoe and moving (hell, so's BUILDING) a house.
And I'm sure all your friends call you MacGyver.
"I'd be more inclined to feel supportive of this guy if his wife and eldest daughter weren't the only members of the family going barefoot."
I won't wear shoes when i'm home either, lmaybe they don't like wearing shoes like I do.
"Have you been in the keywords again" ping
"And I'm sure all your friends call you MacGyver."
I've been called a lot of things but never that, they hadn't invented "him" until a couple of decades after I was an adult.
What really used to piss me off is when my mother in law called me John Glen, said I looked like him and I hated being refered to as that socialist SOB!
Either you forgot the sarcasm tag, or you enjoy spouting half-baked simplistic assertions, which demonstrate a lack of connection to the real world. Care to elucidate? Of course, I'd be happy to discuss wildland fire policy on a different thread, perhaps in chat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.