I don't have a dog in this fight since i don't live up there anymore...BUT, with the history of fires up there, I would think this kind of event would be greatly discouraged if not banned. Obviously nothing bad happened, but if it did start a major forest fire, who would then be blaming who? One tiny cigarette can't wipe out thousands of acres, I just don't understand why a massive bonfire was worth the risk.....just an opinion from a flatlander that loves the mountains.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
CriticalBill wrote: I I just don't understand why a massive bonfire was worth the risk.....just an opinion from a flatlander that loves the mountains.
I'd imagine that they thought the risk was worth it because of the artistic expression.
Regardless of the reasons, it still sounds like some people got together and said "Let's burn something REALLY BIG!" "Yeah, that'd be fun!" "We'll call it a festival!"
I'm thinking I'll organize the "Ziplock baggie full of Acetylene" festival next summer.
Nobody will mind a few big booms, and there's very little open flame... besides. Blowin stuff up is cool! :thumbsup:
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
So it turns out that both the sheriff's office and the fire department were present, according to those who attended.
No one as yet has described the fire perimeter size, however. Since they had a fire permit, I'm sure it was spelled out.
As the original poster called this event a "drug fest" on another site, I am beginning to understand his motivations in trying to raise public concern about the permit-approved event and effigy burning.
Here's a pic of the fire from 2010, but there's nothing for scale:
At last check, the forest didn't burn down. It will be interesting to find out if there were any drug arrests. I'm sure The Flume will have that in their next edition.
LadyJazzer wrote: So, it wasn't "discouraged" or "banned", but done under a permit with the sheriff's office and fire department present...?
Got it....
The next thing you know, you'll be telling us that they "had a GOOD time"!?!?!? [gasp] :VeryScared:
All the permits in the world won't prevent a fire, but if they had the fire dept. there, then I can see why it was permitted.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
So, you admit that this "throw-it-up-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks outrage-of-the-day drive-by hysteria" was the usual load of crap from the usual people that didn't check their facts before being outraged...
Got it.
Wow... I bet if I put "Patriot" in my name, I could throw up outrage-of-the-day stuff too!
LadyJazzer wrote: So, you admit that this "throw-it-up-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks outrage-of-the-day drive-by hysteria" was the usual load of crap from the usual people that didn't check their facts before being outraged...
Got it.
Wow... I bet if I put "Patriot" in my name, I could throw up outrage-of-the-day stuff too!
I never said I was outraged, I just thought it was strange to allow such a massive fire in the mountains that have been previously burned.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
