Support for Paul

[Mr. Woods]

I support Paul and his decision and actions. Hooray!

[Wrath7sins]

I think it was an inside job. I'll explain the theory if requested, otherwise I'll keep my trap shut on it.

[The CO]

I'm sorry, I can't support actions which could have killed or injured people for no good reason. If he was really doing it for a greater minded "protest" then he ought to drop the not guilty plea & take pride & credit for what he did. I have no opinion as to the returning of "anarchy & spontaniety" to the festival, but I have real problems with setting fire to a structure while people are under it, with no perimiter & no fire safety.

And please, I have heard the "no one got hurt" & "it was going to be burned anyway" arguments. Try telling the cops that no one was hurt when you're pulled over for drunk driving. Try burning down a building slated for demolition & then tell people it was going to be destroyed anyway.

[spectabillis]

there's been several mentions that he made sure no one would get hurt and that might be quoted on his comments made afterwards.

but i bet others are going to come along and say just because its a fire someone set that people were needlessly placed in harms way. i hope not, because that would mean fuel for the over-reactionist rule lovers as they call for an end to the hundreds of fire cannons, community fire pits, playful hyjinx, poi freaks, flamethrower carrying people like me, and fire spitters who burn themselves and others..

yeah.. that point does get a bit old, and dangerous to what it leads to.

[Jordan 10-E]

Do you burn other people's art and property with your flamethrower? Or do you intentionally point it at someone? No, I doubt you do. The issue is not fire in and of itself, but how it is used. The incident in question was without a doubt an act of maliciousness and without regard for person or property, all based on extremely questionable motives, from a person that obviously is either highly spun on drugs or has serious mental/emotional issues that need to be dealt with. No matter how you cut it the act was arson. There is a difference between a fire created by an act of arson and the fire at the end of some cute girl spinning poi. This arguement you are using is weak.

As to the "efforts" to make sure no one got hurt, what a royal crock. When you light a match to a (inhabited) structure with the intent to burn it down no one can tell what the results may be. What if one of the firefights was killed or injured. Why should I even have to be writing a full paragraph on this issue? Isn't it obvious all this talk about pre-warnings and spreading knowledge of the "operations" out to every part of the city is just the illusions of a dangerous person?

there's been several mentions that he made sure no one would get hurt and that might be quoted on his comments made afterwards.

but i bet others are going to come along and say just because its a fire someone set that people were needlessly placed in harms way. i hope not, because that would mean fuel for the over-reactionist rule lovers as they call for an end to the hundreds of fire cannons, community fire pits, playful hyjinx, poi freaks, flamethrower carrying people like me, and fire spitters who burn themselves and others..

yeah.. that point does get a bit old, and dangerous to what it leads to.

[joel the ornery]

I support Paul and his decision and actions. Hooray!

how unfortunate.

[barnz]

The incident in question was without a doubt an act of maliciousness and without regard for person or property, all based on extremely questionable motives, from a person that obviously is either highly spun on drugs or has serious mental/emotional issues that need to be dealt with.

I don't understand how you can believe you understand another person's intentions, motives, and emotions. You can certainly share *your* feelings, and your reactions, but regardless of what someone has been quoted as saying in the press it's not possible to have such a deep level of insight into things like malice, regard, drug use, mental/emotional issues.

[misfit]

>>>>What if one of the firefighters was killed or injured. <<<<


that should end your argument.

[ZaphodBurner]

">>>>What if one of the firefighters was killed or injured. <<<< "

...The "Truthers" would probably claim that George Bush did it and that the other firefighters were treasonist shadow-government arsonists, a la WTC7.

-zb

[Jordan 10-E]

You are right I can't know all those things with certainty, however I can start by looking at that persons actions. Motive aside, the behavior, the physical actions he took were inherently dangerous and DID cause harm, and COULD have caused much more harm. I can make judgements upon that alone. The inherent nature of the act was malicious. Period. It is like a bully punching you in the face and then when you start to cry and he gets in trouble he says, "Oh it was all a big joke. What, can't you take a joke?"

Next, I can use his words and see how he acts when he speaks, as can be found on the video that has been released. Despite his attempts to confuse and avoid responsibility for his actions, he has revealed plenty about himself and his actions to allow people to make certain judgements, including a judge.

Some people talk about him having the balls to do this, etc. I don't think it was balls, it was delusional self-interest. The vast majority of people WOULD NOT have done it and there are likely very good reasons why they wouldn't. For one, it isn't his right or property or art to make that decision. Two, there are legal consequences when you do such a serious thing. Three, no matter what you say or believe, people could have gotten hurt or killed because it was done without regard to planning or safety or any other consideration other than a self-serving one. I am sure there are more reasons why most people would not have done this. But he did.

So the question really is, What kind of person would do this? Judging from what I have read and seen and heard and thought out I believe he is likely strung out on drugs (watch the video) or is highly unstable, or both. I have seen enough tweekers in my life to know when someone is LIKELY one of them. He OBVIOUSLY did not use any good judgement when he performed the famous act. He does not even have the good judgement now to censor himself when he is currently under such scrutiny, legal or otherwise. These are the actions of a self-absorbed person that is having a hard time properly distinguishing between reality and fantasy. He is using the opportunity to tell the world something. Don't you see that now he has a "platform" upon which he can be important? He can tell us about the Iraq War and then ramble on about some other topic, etc. He finally has a voice. This is not really about the Man or any other thing, but about Paul Addis. Let's all say his name over and over, Paul Addis. That is what he wants. Forget whether Burning Man is green or not, that has nothing to do with it.

You are right these are my judgements, but I feel I have some pretty sensible reasons for making them. Believe me I try to see every side to a question, I really do, but I am not too much into the idea of coming up with a lot of contrived excuses when someone behaves like an ass. At least I think he should be forgiven for being dealt the cards in life that have lead him to act as recklessly and unconsidered as he did, but it doesn't really excuse his action.

The incident in question was without a doubt an act of maliciousness and without regard for person or property, all based on extremely questionable motives, from a person that obviously is either highly spun on drugs or has serious mental/emotional issues that need to be dealt with.

I don't understand how you can believe you understand another person's intentions, motives, and emotions. You can certainly share *your* feelings, and your reactions, but regardless of what someone has been quoted as saying in the press it's not possible to have such a deep level of insight into things like malice, regard, drug use, mental/emotional issues.

[thisisthatwhichis]

We were hoping they would ride him thru the city in a cage towed by an art car....... Just to see how much support he got........

[unjonharley]

start all the new threads under troll names you want..

it all amounts to some anti social asshole pissing on my parade..

express all you want, keep your action to ourself and off others stuff..

some anti social punks have spoken of keying some ones hummer.. or poking holes in rv tanks..and so on..

i catch you and ill do my time for what i do to you.. wont be the first time..

i go to BM to have a good time.. it s only fair, if you piss on my parade i fuck you up..

[Somnivore]

To say that he ensured that no one would get hurt is bullshit. I was working a med tent that night and can tell you we immediately prepped for a potential mass casualty. The lives of fellow Burners and those volunteer firefighters, Rangers, etc. were all at risk the moment he made the decision to commit arson. If he wanted to make a statement, let him follow in the ways of Ghandi, and he can paint himself a martyr. He's lucky the Ranger who caught him exercised more restraint than he... If a child had died because of his actions, I'm sure people wouldn't be so quick to "support Paul".

[spectabillis]

a child? right, because there are hundreds of those around.

its no coincidence the people most upset over that point are the ones with a direct vested interest.

[Jordan 10-E]

its no coincidence the people most upset over that point are the ones with a direct vested interest.

You are exactly right, and obviously you have no direct interest at all, which helps explain why you continue to come up with one mind-numbing argument after another that has no basis in reality. I have read a lot of your posts here and on tribe and truthfully I find most of your points to be decidedly pointless, with no real substance. You seem to act in the role of devils advocate, but unfortunately out of a level of ignorance rather than true insight. You are not a very good debater because you never really deal with the core of an argument, but rather skip around it constantly. Maybe you can be Paul's defense lawyer.

[spectabillis]

thats sincerely unfortunate, because its not devils advocate but attempting to restore some rational sense of balance to the overwhelming attempt to dignify a communal beating. its disgusting how people become so upset to the point of justifying things, i dont think there is much of a difference in the reactions between the fucked up thing this guy did and the people who want to give him TWENTY YEARS IN PRISON for it.

my guess is i will continue to get criticism because i am one of the few who are so persistant in speaking from this point of view. strange.. i dislike that adam guy but in a weird way i am starting to understand his reactions. small consolation but at least i dont react to being called things like idiot, pointless, insensitive asshole...

[Dork]

You are not a very good debater because you never really deal with the core of an argument, but rather skip around it constantly. Maybe you can be Paul's defense lawyer.

Your posts in this thread have been little more than long-winded diatribes full of speculation and insults. Perhaps you have a career ahead of you in politics or television punditry. Do YOU have any further points to make or are you just attempting to pound away at anyone who is of a different opinion?

I'm glad the man burned. If it was going to happen, it was the best time (lots of people out on the playa, but few under the man) and the best possible platform this year (no maze or structure to get caught inside, easy to tell if anyone is inside). I agree the guy sounds like a nut, but I've sounded like one myself at times. Sure, it was dangerous. I got plenty of lectures this year for having trampolines in front of my camp without round the clock spotters. It's friggin Burning Man, and people are complaining about a wooden man burning?

To say that he ensured that no one would get hurt is bullshit. I was working a med tent that night and can tell you we immediately prepped for a potential mass casualty.

Did you receive any casualties or injuries? Or is prepping for a possible event dangerous in itself?

[spectabillis]

hmmm.. i wonder if this is how noam chomsky or chicken john feels sometimes?

ed: and definately add actiongrl to that list, in fact she deserves first mention.

[barnz]

To say that he ensured that no one would get hurt is bullshit. I was working a med tent that night and can tell you we immediately prepped for a potential mass casualty.

SOM - thank you for staffing a med tent! I appreciate your participation and helpfulness! I am also glad to hear that your group sprung into readiness for an unforeseeable event, good job, much respect.

And I don't see how your preparations indicate that Paul Addis didn't take care to minimize risk. Maybe he really didn't give a fuck about torching people along with the man, but I haven't yet seen, heard, or read anything that makes that clear.

I understand that his action was shocking and surprising. I understand that burning a large wooden structure is an inherently dangerous act, be it on a Monday or a Friday. I would in fact be very surprised to learn that he (and whatever people working with him) took the exact same preventative safety actions on Monday as are generally taken on Friday.

But we're all there to burn the man. My personal impression is that a lot of the anger over this event is based in people's hurt feelings over "doing it wrong." I don't believe there's one right way to do it. For F8cks sake, there really can't be any right way to do that if we examine it thoroughly!

[theCryptofishist]

I understand that burning a large wooden structure is an inherently dangerous act, be it on a Monday or a Friday. I would in fact be very surprised to learn that he (and whatever people working with him) took the exact same preventative safety actions on Monday as are generally taken on Friday.

I can tell you he didn't. I've been to a couple of the ESD pre-burn briefs, and that 's a lot of effort there. Plus they have the rangers on the perimeter. Perhaps it's a more dangerous burn--I"m sure the fireworks make a difference, but we are talking about a large team in continuous contact on radios.

[Ron]

thats sincerely unfortunate, because its not devils advocate but attempting to restore some rational sense of balance to the overwhelming attempt to dignify a communal beating. ....my guess is i will continue to get criticism because i am one of the few who are so persistant in speaking from this point of view. ...

For myself I agree that what's his face does not deserve either a communal beating, nor 20 years in prison. I don't think what he did was morally correct, and do think it amounts to burning someone else's art without their permission. That's wrong, on the face of it.

But I also don't think he's any big public criminal, nor that his early burn of the man was any big deal. The event rolled right along after his premature fire, and will continue to do so. Some folks got their panties in a wad, but that would happen anyway, eh? All in all, it's a mountain being made out of a mole hill, seems to me. Not that that is a rare event in the world, eh?

Ron

[spectabillis]

[All in all, it's a mountain being made out of a mole hill, seems to me.

not for the guy serving twenty years.

[Ron]

What guy is that? The accused fire starter hasn't been convicted yet, let alone sentenced.

Ron

[ZaphodBurner]

[All in all, it's a mountain being made out of a mole hill, seems to me.

not for the guy serving twenty years.

Somebody's serving twenty years for burning the man?

Seems to me that if a guy is going to do something like that he ought to find out what laws he's going to be breaking and whether it's worth whatever sentence might be imposed by governing authorities in the default world.

-zb

[barnz]

Seems to me that if a guy is going to do something like that he ought to find out what laws he's going to be breaking and whether it's worth whatever sentence might be imposed by governing authorities in the default world.

-zb

Zaphod - although our names come from the same place, we seem to come down differently on what Ron would call the "what's his name issue."

But I can't argue with what you've said here.

[Bay Bridge Sue]

What amazed me was that the people who went out there to the pre-burn burn set up their own perimeter. Made me kinda proud of my fellow BRC citizens that we remembered that much. SUre, it wasn't as far as the traditional Saturday perimeter, but people still had their head on right.

Item of note - the REAL heros were the big water tenders of Station 5 and their operators who had the water and the power to get the man fogged and then dowsed. I think it's time that our engine companies went from pickups to actual engines - this is a wake up call. (And what about the art car fire engines out there this year... were any of them available to actually respond as water units had the water been available, or were they just there as window dressing for a flame cannon? No offense intended, just a question, OK?) But seriously... Imagine some of these big fuel dumps some camps have out there. They'd burn hotter (and potentially more dangerous) than the man.

About the "Med tent"... meaning REMSA? Or one of the stations? I mean, well... going to a structure collapse / major casualty mode isn't that tough other than rousting personnel. But yeah, we were all scattering.

Who I worried for were our firefighters who responded. I didn't think the man would be saved, and all I could think about were our VFD people in the drop zone of that thing when it came barreling down. Again, Julies and Lightning (The Station 5 folks) were fucking HEROS and should be granted the accolades of such...

As His Larryness allegedly said, People have been threatening this for 15 years, it was only a matter of time... And so it did. We survived. We moved on. As well we should.

Anyway, back to your regularly unscheduled burn...

bb

[[CDS] topher]

[quote="Mr. Woods"]I support Paul and his decision and actions. Hooray![/quote]


First Burn Rule: Don't Fuck With Others' Burn. Period.


I was actually present at the time (had just arrived and walked out with some close friends. There WERE people in CLEAR danger. That alone invalidates everything the "artist" (I use the term loosely...he comes across to me as more of an insane attention seeking sociopath) was trying to accomplish with this act.

[scotto]

Regardless of the motives of this person...Or his views of what Burning Man IS or IS NOT...

Radical Self Expression is an awesome concept, but his Radical Self Expression must not come at the expense of my own or the 50,000 other Playa Citizens.

The Burning of the Man is for ALL OF US...It has a set day and time...What gives him the right to take that away from any of us...

From my vantage point, there will be no punishment to harsh for this IDIOT!

Scotto

[spectabillis]

there will be no punishment to harsh for this IDIOT!

you support twenty years in prison as a sentance?

[Bay Bridge Sue]

there will be no punishment to harsh for this IDIOT!

you support twenty years in prison as a sentance?

As in "The man will spend 20 years in the Prison."?? Yeah, looks like a sentence. Now, Russians would write sentence like this: "20 Years in prison he will spend." but of course, in Russian, not English.

(Man, gotta keep a sense of humor in all this)

bb