On 08/24/09 14:19, Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to
>> voluntarily do so?
>
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
> duty'.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

>> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for
>> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?
>
> No. But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for
> Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house
> when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and
> can see the need.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

>> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive
>> 30 miles to go fight fires elsewhere?
>
> If they've volunteered to do so.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

	And they didn't volunteer to do so - that's Darren's point. They 
volunteered to put out fires in *this* city. And they volunteered to put 
out fires for the houses that opted in, not for all the houses in the city.

> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
> to bear that responsibility. If you volunteer to join the army, you

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

	I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the word 
"obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.

> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

	That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.

-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message