🚀 go-pugleaf

Glen Appleby wrote:

> On 22 Jan 2002 23:00:03 GMT, in
> ba.mountain-folk,robert@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert Kennedy)
> wrote:
>
> I'm kinda glad that you posted this to the whole string of groups
> to which Scrubbs posted this, initially.
>

BS Deleted

>
> In the early/mid 80s, one of the crew seemed to think it was
> great fun to drive a fire vehicle down Hwy 9 at way too high a
> speed and happened to take out some person crossing the road,
> near a curve, where the driver could not see at the speed that
> they were traveling.

The guy was 17 years old, in his personal vehicle. The lady in question
was wearing a black sweater with black pants. Not an excuse, but it does
change the situation. A tragedy for all.

>
>
> At around that time, I saw the crew of the day trying to help
> some babe get into her locked Volvo wagon.  They tried all of the
> standard tricks to accomplish it, but had no success.
>
> This lady had two adolescent kids along with her.  They were
> rushing about, trying to see what was going on and trying to
> help.
>
> Apparently, between the frustration of not being able to get the
> car unlocked and not looking as macho as they would like, they
> told the kids to get outta there.  ("Go away, kid.  You bother
> me.")
>
> So, instead of hanging around the doors to watch and help, the 2
> kids went around to the back of the wagon and simply opened the
> back door.
>
> Not a single one of the firemen gave the kids their do.  The kids
> got no thanks for what they did.
>

My guess is you are twisting things again. Why didn't you stop to help.
Oh, wait. You just piss and moan and take up space. Never mind.

>
> But those are fairly minor incidents.  They simply showed that
> some of the firefighters had issues that really needed to be
> dealt with before being allowed to wear the funny hat and pants.
> Heck, one can find that type in almost any organization.
>
> What *really* torques me, though, is that some of the
> firefighters seem to have no concept of confidentiality or
> propriaty.
>
> On at least two occasions, I am aware of them being involved in a
> situation (where they served no good purpose) and afterwards, we
> *know* that they told uninvolved parties of what happened.
>
> On one of those occasions, it was our own dear David Scrubbs who
> took part in spilling the beans, right here.
>

Not of our calls. You are still pissed because Emily got ahold of your
posts/lies/distortions about Hoot. Once again, she didn't get them from
me. Since I do know who it was, I'll ask for permission to reveal the
name.

>
> Now, I don't know what anybody else thinks that they can expect
> as far as confidentiality, but I know that there is need for
> medical folks to retain confidentiality.

We did what? I don't think so.

>
>
> If anybody expects it from the BCFD, they may find themselves in
> for a pretty big surprise.
>
> This speaks very poorly for the BCFD in general, to allow this
> type of thing to go on.

The beans were never spilled about the rumor that you were kicked out of
the house for a week awhile back. That was sat on for a long time. It's a
small town. Stuff will catch up with you.

>

Sorry for the rant to the other news groups. You have now met one of our
other resident cranks.

D. Scruggs