If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   U.S. Forest Service: Remember that 2012 Wyoming wildfire you started? Will you be paying the $6.3 million by check or cash?   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 144
    More: Followup, Canadian Forest Service, Wyoming, US Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, wildfires, Bureau of Land Management  
•       •       •

10293 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 7:35 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 10:42:03 AM
So... what's the problem? You do $6.3 million in damage to public property, you need to pay for it.
 
2014-01-09 10:43:21 AM

Mose: Sometimes it'd be nice to have the insight of a lawyer.  It sounds to me this should be handled in the courts where the guy's culpability could be more accurately and impartially determined, if the USFS is intent on recouping their costs.


Like that isn't going to happen. This is the first step in that very process. He'll lawyer up, and the haggling shall begin shortly.
 
2014-01-09 10:44:57 AM

FormlessOne: So... what's the problem? You do $6.3 million in damage to public property, you need to pay for it.


This wasn't even the damage. It was just the cost of putting out the fire so that the damage didn't get any worse.
 
2014-01-09 10:50:45 AM

Katolu: hardinparamedic: xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.

Most wildland firefighters are actually volunteers/paid-on-incident that have passed the physical and wildland training which the National Forrest Service requires. (Which is no joke.)

They don't have thousands of men just setting around somewhere on payroll.

Oh, but don't let facts get in the way of outrage!


I like to manufacture outrage.  It helps pay the bills and keeps the unemployment rate down...even if just a little.  I'm such a patriot.
 
2014-01-09 10:53:32 AM

FormlessOne: Mose: Sometimes it'd be nice to have the insight of a lawyer.  It sounds to me this should be handled in the courts where the guy's culpability could be more accurately and impartially determined, if the USFS is intent on recouping their costs.

Like that isn't going to happen. This is the first step in that very process. He'll lawyer up, and the haggling shall begin shortly.


Yeah, I have no illusions the guy will decide to pay outright without challenging it court.

I don't know if you meant to sound negative when you say "lawyer up/haggling" but it shouldn't be viewed that way in this case.  It's certainly not an open and shut case this guy is 100% culpable for the result of the fire or the cost to contain it.  The Forest Service in this case should in no way be viewed as being impartial in making that decision, this is exactly what we have a civil court system for.
 
2014-01-09 11:00:22 AM
He's not going to end up paying all that; there's no way he can.

So our government wastes a bunch of money and time in this theater instead of doing something reasonable. Farking great.
 
2014-01-09 11:05:06 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: He's not going to end up paying all that; there's no way he can.

So our government wastes a bunch of money and time in this theater instead of doing something reasonable. Farking great.


I mean, sending a $6 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over the actual payment is so muce more expensive than sending a $2 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over payment, right?
 
2014-01-09 11:05:25 AM

HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?


The toilets are indoors.
 
2014-01-09 11:09:16 AM

kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires?  That's not a normal human response to something like this, and if he's predisposed to do that, well that knocks the legs out from under your poor old forgetful man defense, doesn't it?


"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." 
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it.  As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.

Nobody died.

No property was damaged.

If you accidentally start a fire in your house, does the local fire department send you a bill?  What if that fire spreads?

Of course they don't.  Because that defeats the societal purpose of having a either a volunteer or professional paid firefighting service.  At the very most they might send a bill to your insurance company.  But a quick scan of VF websites shows things like this:

If my insurance company does not pay the bill, will you send the bill to me? 
No. If the insurance company does not pay the bill for some reason, neither the fire department nor the billing company will invoice the homeowner.

If I do not have insurance on my home will the fire department bill me? 
No. You will not receive a bill but we strongly urge everyone to have some sort of insurance on their property or belongings. Insurance companies see renters insurance also.


You know, they *USED* to do that sort of thing, directly billing people for fires on their property (whether they were accidental or not).  It led to so many abuses that the practice was stopped.

But it's OK to do it to some likely semi-forgetful old man because why?

This is the very sort of thing that turns the average Joe against government.  If the guy was actually negligent in some way, I'm sure there is something they could charge him with, and like I've said multiple times, I'd support that if there was actual evidence of negligence, but it's been a year and a half since the fire and they haven't, at least based on TFA.  So this seems to be more of a non-judicial administrative "Fark you, we're the government, you must be *PUNISHED*".

The fact that it made the news shows you that it's unusual:  The media doesn't report on "dog bites man" stories.
 
2014-01-09 11:11:18 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: He's not going to end up paying all that; there's no way he can.

So our government wastes a bunch of money and time in this theater instead of doing something reasonable. Farking great.


What are you basing that on? He lives on a street with million+ dollar houses. He may have it, or at least insurance.
 
2014-01-09 11:13:46 AM

log_jammin: doglover: Maybe he's rich. I doubt he has $6,000,000 just lying around however.

because you don't have the cash "handy" to pay for your negligence, then you shouldn't have to pay it. got it.


I don't think anyone is saying that. I think it's more that they will never be able to recoup this money. Might as well charge him the full $15 million. fark it. $25 million to teach him a lesson.
 
2014-01-09 11:16:12 AM

dittybopper: kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires?  That's not a normal human response to something like this, and if he's predisposed to do that, well that knocks the legs out from under your poor old forgetful man defense, doesn't it?

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." 
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it.  As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.

Nobody died.

No property was damaged.

If you accidentally start a fire in your house, does the local fire department send you a bill?  What if that fire spreads?

Of course they don't.  Because that defeats the societal purpose of having a either a volunteer or professional paid firefighting service.  At the very most they might send a bill to your insurance company.  But a quick scan of VF websites shows things like this:

If my insurance company does not pay the bill, will you send the bill to me? 
No. If the insurance company does not pay the bill for some reason, neither the fire department nor the billing company will invoice the homeowner.

If I do not have insurance on my home will the fire department bill me? 
No. You will not receive a bill but we strongly urge everyone to have some sort of insurance on their property or belongings. Insurance companies see renters insurance also.

You know, they *USED* to do that sort of thing, directly billing people for fires on their property (whether they were accidental or not).  It led to so many abuses that the practice was stopped.

But it's OK to do it to some likely semi-forgetful old man because why?

This is the very sort of thing that turns the average Joe against government.  If the guy was actually negligent in some way, I'm sure there is something they could charge him with, and like I've said multiple times, I'd support that if there was actual evidence of negligence, but it's been a year and a half since the fire and they haven't, at least based on TFA.  So this seems to be more of a non-judicial administrative "Fark you, we're the government, you must be *PUNISHED*".

The fact that it made the news shows you that it's unusual:  The media doesn't report on "dog bites man" stories.


No evidence of negligence?

The person INTENTIONALLY started a fire where the was a BAN in place due to the HIGH RISK of something like this happening and LEFT IT UNATTENDED.

That is pretty damn good evidence of negligence.
 
2014-01-09 11:19:28 AM

ThighsofGlory: HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?

The toilets are indoors.


This is Jackson WY. Home of Dick Cheney plus a handful of celebs who like to ski and fly fish. Actually very nice place compared to the other side of Teton pass where you can find Driggs Idaho.
 
2014-01-09 11:20:41 AM

dittybopper: The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it.  As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.


He didn't. One of the neighbors did.
 
2014-01-09 11:23:34 AM

onyxruby: ejpj2000: doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?

It wont do any good, jewish people are one of the types fark allows people to bash. They used to enforce a no asshat rule, now it's no asshat against some, others are fair game...


Fortunately bicyclists and fat people are legal. Are you either of those? Because I've been working on my insults.
 
2014-01-09 11:33:07 AM

dywed88: dittybopper: kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires?  That's not a normal human response to something like this, and if he's predisposed to do that, well that knocks the legs out from under your poor old forgetful man defense, doesn't it?

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." 
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it.  As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.

Nobody died.

No property was damaged.

If you accidentally start a fire in your house, does the local fire department send you a bill?  What if that fire spreads?

Of course they don't.  Because that defeats the societal purpose of having a either a volunteer or professional paid firefighting service.  At the very most they might send a bill to your insurance company.  But a quick scan of VF websites shows things like this:

If my insurance company does not pay the bill, will you send the bill to me? 
No. If the insurance company does not pay the bill for some reason, neither the fire department nor the billing company will invoice the homeowner.

If I do not have insurance on my home will the fire department bill me? 
No. You will not receive a bill but we strongly urge everyone to have some sort of insurance on their property or belongings. Insurance companies see renters insurance also.

You know, they *USED* to do that sort of thing, directly billing people for fires on their property (whether they were accidental or not).  It led to so many abuses that the practice was stopped.

But it's OK to do it to some likely semi-forgetful old man because why?

This is the very sort of thing that turns the average Joe against government.  If the guy was actually negligent in some way, I'm sure there is something they could charge him with, and like I've said multiple times, I'd support that if there was ...


And that is kind of the crux of the issue.  Was it an accident or can they prove it was negligence?  Generally, it is legal to burn things out here under normal circumstances so long as some general precautions are made.  However, during dry or overly windy days/seasons, there can be no-burn orders and even further restrictions on anything that can cause a wildfire. Without knowing more specifics, it is hard to say where this exactly falls.
 
2014-01-09 11:34:50 AM

cryinoutloud: He didn't. One of the neighbors did.


Not according to this article:

Anderson is accused letting a fire of twigs and paper in a rusted-out old barrel he lit at 6 a.m. Sept. 8, 2012, on his son's property get out of control. According to the Forest Service report, Anderson watched football and had a sandwich before noticing smoke out of a garage window. He called 911.
 
2014-01-09 11:38:29 AM
Read the thread headlever. I posted links. His neighbor called.
 
2014-01-09 11:46:16 AM
Looks like the dumbs have shown up to white knight against personal responsibility. How... predictable. I'm outta here.
 
2014-01-09 11:48:01 AM

kwame: dittybopper: What is to stop an old guy like that with nothing more left to lose at that point from intentionally starting multiple fires because fark you for sending a $6 million dollar bill?

I have to come back to this because it's so incredibly dumb.   Maybe we should cut back on stiff penalties for DUI offenders because what if they get pissed off and intentionally drive drunk through school zones?  And why arrest parents responsible for the negligent death of their child?  They might go on a shooting spree in a maternity ward!


Them old people get crotchity and cantankerous.  Plus, there's a difference between a stiff penalty and a totally bonkers never paying it off penalty.
 
2014-01-09 11:59:56 AM

log_jammin: I posted links. His neighbor called.


The first link you provided gives this:

According to a Forest Service report, Anderson told investigators he had burned twigs, shrub branches and papers in the barrel at his son's home at 6 a.m. Later, after watching football and getting a sandwich, he said he saw smoke outside through a garage window. He called 911, according to the investigation report obtained by AP through a separate FOIA request.

Your post (I don't see a link on that one) about Mr. Cook does not negate the fact that Mr. Anderson also called 911 per the other news sources.

Of course, even if he called 911, that does absolve him of negligence in the matter.
 
2014-01-09 12:01:13 PM

log_jammin: His neighbor called.


And generally when you have fire get out of control, it is logical that you will get multiple calls.
 
2014-01-09 12:05:11 PM

HeadLever: dywed88: dittybopper: kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires?  That's not a normal human response to something like this, and if he's predisposed to do that, well that knocks the legs out from under your poor old forgetful man defense, doesn't it?

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." 
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it.  As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.

Nobody died.

No property was damaged.

If you accidentally start a fire in your house, does the local fire department send you a bill?  What if that fire spreads?

Of course they don't.  Because that defeats the societal purpose of having a either a volunteer or professional paid firefighting service.  At the very most they might send a bill to your insurance company.  But a quick scan of VF websites shows things like this:

If my insurance company does not pay the bill, will you send the bill to me? 
No. If the insurance company does not pay the bill for some reason, neither the fire department nor the billing company will invoice the homeowner.

If I do not have insurance on my home will the fire department bill me? 
No. You will not receive a bill but we strongly urge everyone to have some sort of insurance on their property or belongings. Insurance companies see renters insurance also.

You know, they *USED* to do that sort of thing, directly billing people for fires on their property (whether they were accidental or not).  It led to so many abuses that the practice was stopped.

But it's OK to do it to some likely semi-forgetful old man because why?

This is the very sort of thing that turns the average Joe against government.  If the guy was actually negligent in some way, I'm sure there is something they could charge him with, and like I've said multiple times, I'd support that if there was ...

And that is kind of the crux of the issue.  Was it an accident or can they prove it was negligence?  Generally, it is legal to burn things out here under normal circumstances so long as some general precautions are made.  However, during dry or overly windy days/seasons, there can be no-burn orders and even further restrictions on anything that can cause a wildfire. Without knowing more specifics, it is hard to say where this exactly falls.


Guy left fire in his backyard unattended while watching football. That is a no-no.

Per other links there was a ban on such fires in place because of dry weather.

Pretty clear where it fits in.
 
2014-01-09 12:08:50 PM

dittybopper: Nobody died.

No property was damaged.


Sweet.  I can shoot guns at people so long as I don't hit them or damage anything around them.
 
2014-01-09 12:09:19 PM

dywed88: Guy left fire in his backyard unattended while watching football. That is a no-no.

Per other links there was a ban on such fires in place because of dry weather.


Yeah I didn't see that.  If there was a no-burn order in place and he did that without obtaining a permit that is bad.  To go leave it unattended is worse.  If that is correct, I can defiantly see the negligence part of the discussion becoming relevant.
 
2014-01-09 12:10:12 PM

dywed88: I mean, sending a $6 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over the actual payment is so muce more expensive than sending a $2 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over payment, right?


It's America; there are probably a dozen lawyers at his door right now. Each agency is now paying someone to handle negotiations with this guy; they've probably hired some lawyers as well. There will probably be press conferences and media inquiries. We're going to end up, as taxpayers, spending a tidy sum trying to get this pan to pay a bill. I don't know if it's going to be more than we'll get out of him, but I'm no optimist on this.
 
2014-01-09 12:12:04 PM

kwame: I can shoot guns at people so long as I

don't hit them or damage anything around them.

That does not really compute.

Although Ditty's point about no property being damaged is a bit off.  Just because it does not burn down a house or other building does not mean that there was not property damage.  Forest fires and wildland fires can create significant damage to the land.
 
2014-01-09 12:16:26 PM

trappedspirit: Plus, there's a difference between a stiff penalty and a totally bonkers never paying it off penalty.


If you don't want to be responsible for millions of dollars worth of damage, don't cause millions of dollars worth of damage.
 
2014-01-09 12:23:42 PM

kwame: dittybopper: This wasn't intentionally set: He was burning twigs and paper in a barrel, and at some point, the fire spread beyond the barrel.

I think you misunderstand the word "intentional."  He didn't accidentally put twigs and paper in a barrel and accidentally set them on fire.  He was negligent in maintaining an intentional fire.

I don't think anyone expects to collect on the bill, but it is a pretty solid way to demonstrate how much damage someone can cause by not being responsible.


I think you don't understand the word intent

He did not intend to cause a forest fire
 
2014-01-09 12:25:33 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: dywed88: I mean, sending a $6 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over the actual payment is so muce more expensive than sending a $2 million bill and then negotiating/arguing over payment, right?

It's America; there are probably a dozen lawyers at his door right now. Each agency is now paying someone to handle negotiations with this guy; they've probably hired some lawyers as well. There will probably be press conferences and media inquiries. We're going to end up, as taxpayers, spending a tidy sum trying to get this pan to pay a bill. I don't know if it's going to be more than we'll get out of him, but I'm no optimist on this.


It will cost money.

But they will likely collect far more.

I seriously doubt this number was a complete ass-pull (as the total cost was apparently in excess of $9 million).

They probably have a decent idea how much insurance will pay and how much he is likely able to pay.

And the most likely result is that it takes a few days of negotiations and a settlement plan is established.

If the guy (or his insurance company) actually fights it, it wouldn't matter how much they billed him.
 
2014-01-09 12:25:50 PM

Warlordtrooper: I think you don't understand the word intent

He did not intend to cause a forest fire


He intentionally set a fire.  His negligence caused the forest fire.
 
2014-01-09 01:21:53 PM

dittybopper: The guy had a relatively small lapse of judgement, but he didn't compound it. As soon as he noticed there was a problem, he called 911.

Nobody died.

No property was damaged.


Ok. So there's no reason to throw him in jail on criminal charges. And he wasn't.
 
2014-01-09 02:01:25 PM

dittybopper: No property was damaged.


Uhh....  What?

dittybopper: If the guy was actually negligent in some way, I'm sure there is something they could charge him with, and like I've said multiple times, I'd support that if there was actual evidence of negligence, but it's been a year and a half since the fire and they haven't, at least based on TFA.


He started a fire during a burn ban, left it unattended, and it ended up burning down a huge area and costing millions of dollars to take care of it.

How is that NOT negligence?  Are you really this messed in the head or are you trolling?
 
2014-01-09 02:08:35 PM

ErinPac: So he hurts more random people, destroys more neighbors' property, costs the taxpayers some more money, possibly gets someone to shoot him if they see him setting fires, regains zero of the money he was charged... how does that help him again?


I didn't say it was rational; I said it was normal human operational behavior, not psychopathy.
 
2014-01-09 02:21:55 PM
I love all the people using the "poor old man" defense. You people don't know any old men, do you?
 
2014-01-09 02:22:05 PM

xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.


The point here is more a legal slap on the wrist for starting a forest fire. I wholeheartedly approve of that, but the figure is ridiculous--for a legal slap on the wrist, it needs to be something that can theoretically get paid.
 
2014-01-09 02:39:14 PM

bluefoxicy: ErinPac: So he hurts more random people, destroys more neighbors' property, costs the taxpayers some more money, possibly gets someone to shoot him if they see him setting fires, regains zero of the money he was charged... how does that help him again?

I didn't say it was rational; I said it was normal human operational behavior, not psychopathy.


I wasn't even looking for perfectly rational; even a minute glimpse of a sane reason may have worked, even if the risks and rewards didn't line up.  He didn't even start this fire with violent intents, so it's not like he's already a violent firebug that they might push further over that cliff.

Wanton destruction and endangerment of innocent people because you are broke is not simply normal, or there would be no buildings left in any slum, taking a job with a debt collection agency would be a death sentence, and banks would never dare foreclose.  Have you seen a lot of mass murderers created from bankruptcy proceedings?  How about terminal cancer patients who go broke in treatment?  Not them either?  It seems that there are an awful lot of people who may lose everything they have, and sometimes even lose more such as their health and lives, without violently lashing out and causing massive amounts of destruction.  A debt that is too large to pay off is really bad, but many people get themselves into that scenerio every day, without any newsworthy consequences.  They aren't going to waterboard him, and they probably can't even jail him for long - violating a burn ban probably doesn't carry a long sentence, if any.  It's a debt.  He'll just be mostly broke but otherwise probably fine, and try to keep anything he earns in a relatives name.   He still has PLENTY to lose if he decided to become a violent criminal - basically everything that's not his insurance policy.

Most people have at least SOME level of empathy and would not lash out and do millions of dollars of damage and hurt random people who have nothing to do with their own pain because they lost their money.  Going broke is not going to make the normal, average person act like a violent psycopath.  It might drive them to steal, or attempt to hide their assests, or live with their relatives (he was at his son's house anyways), but you have quite a broad interpretation of normal behavior if massive uncontrolled acts of arson is simply a response to a bill, no matter how large.  I guess people can reach a breaking point where they end up essentially crazy, but they have really left the realm of 'normal behavior' at that point, and if this is that breaking point, it's a fairly flimsy one.  If you are including psychotic breaks in 'normal behavior', well pretty much any psychopathy is 'normal' to some extent.

If that's his reaction, well, hopefully they stop the first one quickly and then rightfully try him as a violent psycopath and he probably doesn't have enough years left to finish the sentence.  That scenerio sounds like a bad Batman script, where he becomes the arch villian after an especially annoying debt collector calls one time too many....  and maybe something radioactive in the groundwater.
 
2014-01-09 03:12:49 PM

PsiChick: xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.

The point here is more a legal slap on the wrist for starting a forest fire. I wholeheartedly approve of that, but the figure is ridiculous--for a legal slap on the wrist, it needs to be something that can theoretically get paid.


We don't know. A significant portion of the bill could be paid. Insurance may cover a significant chunk and we don't know how well off he is or is not, except that his son live in a very affluent neighbourhood. There is certainly a non-negligible possibility that he has that much money in liquid assets.

And they likely had some reason for knocking it down from $9 million to $6 million. It certainly wasn't just "insert random large number here" and the people involved have probably been through this situation a number of times.

This is, in effect, the starting point for any negotiations. Hell, the letter even said that he could contact them to negotiate. And if you submit a unsolicited (no specific contract regarding the amount) million plus dollar bill to someone you expect to negotiate on it.
 
2014-01-09 03:22:38 PM

dywed88: PsiChick: xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.

The point here is more a legal slap on the wrist for starting a forest fire. I wholeheartedly approve of that, but the figure is ridiculous--for a legal slap on the wrist, it needs to be something that can theoretically get paid.

We don't know. A significant portion of the bill could be paid. Insurance may cover a significant chunk and we don't know how well off he is or is not, except that his son live in a very affluent neighbourhood. There is certainly a non-negligible possibility that he has that much money in liquid assets.

And they likely had some reason for knocking it down from $9 million to $6 million. It certainly wasn't just "insert random large number here" and the people involved have probably been through this situation a number of times.

This is, in effect, the starting point for any negotiations. Hell, the letter even said that he could contact them to negotiate. And if you submit a unsolicited (no specific contract regarding the amount) million plus dollar bill to someone you expect to negotiate on it.


Ah. Makes sense.
 
2014-01-09 03:36:44 PM
A kind of pointless gesture (other than to make the guy feel bad), but I can't say I have a problem with it.

From what the story said, it wasn't an accident so much as it was willful, negligent stupidity and carelessness.

If you don't like being reminded that you're dumb, don't do dumb things.
 
2014-01-09 03:43:25 PM

Onkel Buck: [i26.photobucket.com image 320x199]
Check is in the mail


But since it's from the prodigy, it's post-dated in the mid 90s..
 
2014-01-09 05:34:29 PM

dittybopper: Also, I could see charging him if it was intentional. This wasn't intentionally set: He was burning twigs and paper in a barrel, and at some point, the fire spread beyond the barrel. He actually called 911 as soon as he noticed there was a problem.


there is a word for that; Negligence.

it's not like the fire spirit up and decided to go into the trees
 
2014-01-09 06:47:10 PM

stir22: HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?

no, there's just herds of middle-age women wearing pink cowboy hats and wearing too tight jeans.


No thanks, I'll pass

bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
 
2014-01-09 08:09:44 PM

HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?


A bit like this
img2.10bestmedia.com

or this

lh6.ggpht.com

No shortage of money at Jackson Hole
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report