LashL,
I understand your admiration for your own department.
You can have whatever concocted version of me you wish. But please don't extrapolate that to the SFD. They are a very cutting edge department and you only have to research that to discover their quality.
I have no "concocted version of [you]". I have read, I researched, and I have drawn my conclusions based upon a combination of your posts on this particular topic and what my research has uncovered on this particular topic.
You have made claims that result in the obvious conclusion that if you were actually a firefighter for the Seattle fire department, they clearly don't have very high standards. So, despite your late attempt to distance your prior posts from the SFD, sorry, too late.
You are the one who wrote posts that led to the obvious conclusion that you are entirely ignorant of some
very basic firefighting knowledge and issues that any professional firefighter would/should have known.
You are the one who wrote posts that led to the obvious conclusion that your ignorance of basic firefighting knowledge and issues is reflective of the standards of the Seattle fire department, as you claim to have worked as a firefighter for the Seattle fire department.
Don't blame me for the fact that you've allowed your ignorance and failings to be the face of the Seattle Fire Department to those who read it that way here. That is entirely your own doing. When you post outlandish claims online and simultaneously claim a certain level of expertise that you attribute to a specific entity, well, the obvious inference is entirely reasonable.
You allowed your ignorance and failings on simple, basic, firefighting issues to become the face of the Seattle Fire Department. So, you've noone to blame but yourself for the bad name you're giving them.
Your ignorance of firefighting is starting to show.
Oh, really? One of us is ignorant about firefighting, but it isn't me.
We had 4 shifts - so you had a 25% chance of getting a fire. Then you divide that by 33 stations. So, to have a well involved or fully involved fire in your first response district was not that common.
Oh boy. You really haven't a clue, have you? While Seattle may still operate on the (very old and outmoded) 4 shift system, your attempt at equating that mathematically and statistically to the number of fires that a given station might be exposed to in the manner you did is
absolute nonsense.
Either you knew that (as you would if you were an experienced and knowledgeable firefighter) or you were being deliberately dishonest by spouting what you knew or should have known were utterly false statistics. Which is it, Russell? Ignorance or dishonesty? Those really are the only two choices.
An experienced and knowledgeable firefighter would know that it is ridiculous, inaccurate, and not reflective of reality to simply take the number of calls and divide that number by four and purport that the result is in any way accurate or meaningful as to the number of fires that a firefighter would/might encounter. An experienced and knowledgeable firefighter would know that any given 8 hour segment of the day is not equal to the others, and would know that more fires occur between certain hours of the day than others, and would know, read and distill the statistics properly instead of making simplistic and inaccurate assertions such as those you have made here, Russell.
An experienced firefighter would also know that it is ridiculous, meaningless, and wholly inaccurate to purport to ascertain and opine upon the number of fires that any given firefighter would or could be expected to encounter in a given time period on the basis of dividing the number of fires by the number of stations, as you have purported to do here. An experienced and knowledgeable firefighter would know that there are vast differences in the number of fires within the geographical areas of various stations.
Again, your obvious inabilty to respond to and/or explain your inability to respond to simple things that experienced and knowledgeable firefighters would know without batting an eye really make me wonder about you, Russell.
What department are your supporting? I will go review their fire data to see the number of runs and the nature of runs to show that fully involved structure fires are not that common in mid-sized cities.
Based on your prior posts and your obvious inability to apply even the most basic mathematics and your inability to interpret even the most basic statistical data, I have my doubts about your ability to analyze or interpret the fire data. Based on other posts of yours which demonstrate your inability to even define "fully involved", I also doubt your ability to analyze the data for the purposes that you now claim you will analyze the data for. But I think it might be amusing at least to watch you try.
That said, my partner's primary station is Toronto 331 - so by all means, look up the stats.
