Don't take the bait. They're just getting out ahead of the question when it comes up. In fall '00 there were public meetings where the students could get up and make our case for keeping it and tell the administration that we would waive our liability. They said that wouldn't hold up (of course it wouldn't). They were never going to bring it back to campus but they had to go through the motions.

I'm not even pissed any more that they took it off campus, or that we went through that dog and pony bull***** I get why they made the decision. And it was a great lesson in how a government entity mitigates risk and "involves the public".

But screw them all for bringing this back up if it isn't for real.

WBBQ74 said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

That area is still a major drainage area.

---

I know this is major arm-chair-quarterbacking, but I still believe had bonfire remained on the original drill field spot, it wouldn't have collapsed. That ground was as hard as concrete.

---

It was never a drill field, more like an inter mural or PT field.

---

Are you talking about Duncan or Simpson?

Duncan

Heard this on KTRH740 this morning. They were all giddy about it coming back (said the last bonfire was 1999) and A&M hiring an engineering firm to construct it would allow the tradition to continue.

Bonfire continues through Student Bonfire. Anything other than students constructing it is just a way for the university to create a marketing campaign for donors.

If they bring it back without it being student led and built I would continue to donate money to the off campus "Student Bonfire" and hope they continue doing it as close to the same as possible.

Bison said:

---

NO to on-campus. That ship has sailed. There is no space to use that would not prompt howls of protest from the capital projects folks, save the Polo Fields. And we are NOT doing the Polo Fields. No.

As well, consider what happens with the suits in the room. They will insist that owning ALL rights to the project, including the terms "Bonfire," "Burn," and "Cut." That is all the leverage needed to kill the project permanently at some point, off-campus or not: sue 'em all for copyright infringement.

The less the administration is involved, the better.

Tangent: is Student Bonfire a nonprofit organization a la 501(c)3?

---

Yeah, the pressure to stop polluting would be hard for the Admin to resist.
Eventually the state or Feds may shut it down anyway,
but I still hope there will be some change in that trajectory.

Bison said:

---

NO to on-campus. That ship has sailed. There is no space to use that would not prompt howls of protest from the capital projects folks, save the Polo Fields. And we are NOT doing the Polo Fields. No.

As well, consider what happens with the suits in the room. They will insist that owning ALL rights to the project, including the terms "Bonfire," "Burn," and "Cut." That is all the leverage needed to kill the project permanently at some point, off-campus or not: sue 'em all for copyright infringement.

The less the administration is involved, the better.

Tangent: is Student Bonfire a nonprofit organization a la 501(c)3?

---

The ship hasn't sailed. If it had it wouldn't even be broached. I assume by 'on campus' you mean main campus. TAMU has huge tracts of land in the vicinity they could use. Might be more of a PITA if it was at RELLIS but they only other main campus option is polo fields and that would be weird next to the memorial.

I have been to 23 bonfires and it was the students, band, yell leaders, fans and community that was special....the location can be managed.

Bring it back. Screw the environmentalists and lawyers.

TexasRebel said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

A1_Ag_95 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

So the Polo Fields is still the best On Campus Option even based on your post. As mentioned the soil is the issue so there are ways to solve that, most likely with a permanent concrete base and possibly Centerpole.

---

Really? Let's bring it back and build it right next to the site where 12 died? Talk about some bad PR optics.

That area is still a major drainage area.

---

As long as it is done respectfully I don't see a problem with it being next to the Memorial, those 12 loved Bonfire and certainly wouldn't want it to go away.

As for the soil issue I'm not an Engineer but I do know it is a solvable problem. Maybe that's a drainage system. Maybe that's a permanent platform or Centerpole. We have some very smart people at our school and I think we can figure it out should we choose to.

---

Sounds like Elon Musk got a TexAgs handle.

"I don't care what the engineers say. We can do it if we want to bad enough!"

---

The only thing I have seen from the Engineering report is if they tried building it as is it would be a problem. There are many ways to fix that if they desire to and are willing to spend some money. If the school is involved that can be resolved.

agenjake said:

---

Don't take the bait. They're just getting out ahead of the question when it comes up. In fall '00 there were public meetings where the students could get up and make our case for keeping it and tell the administration that we would waive our liability. They said that wouldn't hold up (of course it wouldn't). They were never going to bring it back to campus but they had to go through the motions.

I'm not even pissed any more that they took it off campus, or that we went through that dog and pony bull***** I get why they made the decision. And it was a great lesson in how a government entity mitigates risk and "involves the public".

But screw them all for bringing this back up if it isn't for real.

---

They couldn't bring it back to campus with that scathing Report and the lawsuits still pending.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Bison said:

---

NO to on-campus. That ship has sailed. There is no space to use that would not prompt howls of protest from the capital projects folks, save the Polo Fields. And we are NOT doing the Polo Fields. No.

As well, consider what happens with the suits in the room. They will insist that owning ALL rights to the project, including the terms "Bonfire," "Burn," and "Cut." That is all the leverage needed to kill the project permanently at some point, off-campus or not: sue 'em all for copyright infringement.

The less the administration is involved, the better.

Tangent: is Student Bonfire a nonprofit organization a la 501(c)3?

---

Yeah, the pressure to stop polluting would be hard for the Admin to resist.
Eventually the state or Feds may shut it down anyway,
but I still hope there will be some change in that trajectory.

---

They always used trees that were going to be cleared and they had Replant which was a huge project to plant trees for those that were burned.

One time when my dorm went to Replant, someone asked that if Bonfire officially no longer exists, shouldn't it just be called "Plant"?

aggie93 said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Bison said:

---

NO to on-campus. That ship has sailed. There is no space to use that would not prompt howls of protest from the capital projects folks, save the Polo Fields. And we are NOT doing the Polo Fields. No.

As well, consider what happens with the suits in the room. They will insist that owning ALL rights to the project, including the terms "Bonfire," "Burn," and "Cut." That is all the leverage needed to kill the project permanently at some point, off-campus or not: sue 'em all for copyright infringement.

The less the administration is involved, the better.

Tangent: is Student Bonfire a nonprofit organization a la 501(c)3?

---

Yeah, the pressure to stop polluting would be hard for the Admin to resist.
Eventually the state or Feds may shut it down anyway,
but I still hope there will be some change in that trajectory.

---

They always used trees that were going to be cleared and they had Replant which was a huge project to plant trees for those that were burned.

---

It is the greenhouse gasses that would be objected to...

Rongagin71 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Bison said:

---

NO to on-campus. That ship has sailed. There is no space to use that would not prompt howls of protest from the capital projects folks, save the Polo Fields. And we are NOT doing the Polo Fields. No.

As well, consider what happens with the suits in the room. They will insist that owning ALL rights to the project, including the terms "Bonfire," "Burn," and "Cut." That is all the leverage needed to kill the project permanently at some point, off-campus or not: sue 'em all for copyright infringement.

The less the administration is involved, the better.

Tangent: is Student Bonfire a nonprofit organization a la 501(c)3?

---

Yeah, the pressure to stop polluting would be hard for the Admin to resist.
Eventually the state or Feds may shut it down anyway,
but I still hope there will be some change in that trajectory.

---

They always used trees that were going to be cleared and they had Replant which was a huge project to plant trees for those that were burned.

---

It is the greenhouse gasses that would be objected to...

---

No doubt, but those trees are being cleared and burned anyway just not all at once. Beyond that though you can't rationalize with Leftist Enviro Whackos. They are focused on burning everything down in a different way and facts don't matter.

Too bad there isn't a number that rhymes with "Thunberg", because that would be a great heave yell.

Quote:

---

The university actively denounces student bonfire with its fish camp rhetoric, pushing a narrative. Many participants who went to fish camp disliked it and recollected the anti-bonfire message.

---

I'm not surprised, but at least the situation has improved since 2003, when ResLife sent a letter (titled "The decision is in your hands") discourage people from participating in Bonfire (discussed here).

And I've heard that people involved in previous "renegade" Bonfire attempts, including Keep the Fire Burning (KTFB) in 2000, and Hotard Hall's event in 2001, were even more harassed by the administration. I recall back in those days, some upperclassman's personal website had a fictional account of an off-campus bonfire, which included a part like (very paraphrased):

Campus cops: Why do you have that ax?
Student: I'm going to murder my roommate.
Campus cops: OK, that's fine. Just as long as you aren't cutting any trees.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Quote:

---

The university actively denounces student bonfire with its fish camp rhetoric, pushing a narrative. Many participants who went to fish camp disliked it and recollected the anti-bonfire message.

---

I'm not surprised, but at least the situation has improved since 2003, when ResLife sent a letter (titled "The decision is in your hands") discourage people from participating in Bonfire (discussed here).

And I've heard that people involved in previous "renegade" Bonfire attempts, including Keep the Fire Burning (KTFB) in 2000, and Hotard Hall's event in 2001, were even more harassed by the administration. I recall back in those days, some upperclassman's personal website had a fictional account of an off-campus bonfire, which included a part like (very paraphrased):

Campus cops: Why do you have that ax?
Student: I'm going to murder my roommate.
Campus cops: OK, that's fine. Just as long as you aren't cutting any trees.

---

While I hate what the school did back then I understand it. They were in the middle of a bunch of massive lawsuits and a major part of those lawsuits was the school allowing the culture of what Bonfire had become with no real supervision and a lot of alcohol. There were a lot of lawyers wanting to basically say the University was giving a wink wink to allowing students to do whatever they wanted with the rebel Bonfires. That sucked for the students trying to keep it alive but I really don't know what choice the Admin had. Just ugly times and lots of hard feelings, quite justified.

It's been 25 years though and Student Bonfire has a solid track record of showing Bonfire can be done. Unfortunately there is no trust and I can understand why. I've certainly seen it with what has happened with the Corps. I just guess there is a part of me that would love to heal some of the wounds and bring us back together again even if it won't ever be what it was.

I understand the reaction not to want to have it back on Campus and to never work with the Administration again but I also can see it is very naive. Make no mistake, the University has the power in this and if they wish to they can do what they want about Bonfire. I'd much rather the Student Bonfire folks try and work with them instead of simply being in steadfast opposition. All that does is make it so that your voice won't be heard all by the decision makers and makes your nightmare scenario more likely.

The admin had to concede that they couldn't tell every student what they couldn't do when not representing the university.

You keep assuming that nothing was done to bring it back to campus, or even be affiliated with Texas A&M. Stop that. It's a poor assumption.

Texas A&M and College Station are so intertwined that Burn would have been shut down within the city limits at one point. Even Brazos County washed their hands of it.

TexasRebel said:

---

The admin had to concede that they couldn't tell every student what they couldn't do when not representing the university.

You keep assuming that nothing was done to bring it back to campus, or even be affiliated with Texas A&M. Stop that. It's a poor assumption.

Texas A&M and College Station are so intertwined that Burn would have been shut down within the city limits at one point. Even Brazos County washed their hands of it.

---

What are you talking about? I just said that the school was doing everything they could to stop it 20 plus years ago because of the lawsuits and liability from it. I also said that people have hard feelings and you continue to prove that point.

A lot of time has passed since then and some people are now making an effort to bring it back, powerful people with real influence. Once again I admire the folks who created Student Bonfire and kept it alive, it was the best we could hope for based on those conditions. The question is whether or not things have changed. If you want to take your ball and run with it that's fine but the only real thing you are doing is making sure your voice won't be heard by the powerful people that matter. In fact the more you resist them the more it will be used to prove their point of the negative aspects of Bonfire even if it is done so unfairly.

I have no power but I do understand how things work. Whatever happened 20 plus years ago has very little bearing on the decisions being made now.

FYI, Dion McInnis (Student Bonfire's photographer and Board of Directors member) was on The Michael Berry Show (a radio talk show in Houston) yesterday:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7pE4D2nEUH7pgO8uxaLoJK

The university doesn't want to have the Neeley grode yell back on campus

trailrunner said:

---

The university doesn't want to have the Neeley grode yell back on campus

---

Do they still have the same yell since becoming co-ed?

I hope not!

I laughed when heard my old dorm, Walton, is now a coed air conditioned dorm. LOL.

trailrunner said:

---

I hope not!

I laughed when heard my old dorm, Walton, is now a coed air conditioned dorm. LOL.

---

Yeah, Walton got A/C in 2000, and Hart in 2002.

Hart became co-ed because girls wanted cheap housing too. Walton became co-ed because they offended Black people, and so the university kicked all the residents out.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

trailrunner said:

---

I hope not!

I laughed when heard my old dorm, Walton, is now a coed air conditioned dorm. LOL.

---

Yeah, Walton got A/C in 2000, and Hart in 2002.

Hart became co-ed because girls wanted cheap housing too. Walton became co-ed because they offended Black people, and so the university kicked all the residents out.

---

Yeah I heard. Walton kind of offended everyone though.

Hotard Hall
May be small
Still won't be here come next fall.

aggie93 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

The admin had to concede that they couldn't tell every student what they couldn't do when not representing the university.

You keep assuming that nothing was done to bring it back to campus, or even be affiliated with Texas A&M. Stop that. It's a poor assumption.

Texas A&M and College Station are so intertwined that Burn would have been shut down within the city limits at one point. Even Brazos County washed their hands of it.

---

What are you talking about? I just said that the school was doing everything they could to stop it 20 plus years ago because of the lawsuits and liability from it. I also said that people have hard feelings and you continue to prove that point.

A lot of time has passed since then and some people are now making an effort to bring it back, powerful people with real influence. Once again I admire the folks who created Student Bonfire and kept it alive, it was the best we could hope for based on those conditions. The question is whether or not things have changed. If you want to take your ball and run with it that's fine but the only real thing you are doing is making sure your voice won't be heard by the powerful people that matter. In fact the more you resist them the more it will be used to prove their point of the negative aspects of Bonfire even if it is done so unfairly.

I have no power but I do understand how things work. Whatever happened 20 plus years ago has very little bearing on the decisions being made now.

---

But it does. I remember my now wife being required to take down any flyer or pamphlet that mentioned off campus bonfire from their dorms. We were viewed and spoken about as trouble makers.

So what the university created was a lot of former students that were treated like crap and that view this as a pure cash grab. And those donor dollars will have bearing on anything moving forward.

Quote:

---

But it does. I remember my now wife being required to take down any flyer or pamphlet that mentioned off campus bonfire from their dorms. We were viewed and spoken about as trouble makers.

So what the university created was a lot of former students that were treated like crap and that view this as a pure cash grab. And those donor dollars will have bearing on anything moving forward.

---

This.

IMHO, the 2000's has become a forgotten era at Texas A&M. (Well, except for Red, White, & Blue Out, since that was a great photo-op.)

November 18, 1999 (and the football game the next week) gets a lot of attention, and rightly so. Mourning the dead is something that anyone can understand.

However, having a formative time in your life defined by the aftermath of a disaster is not a universal experience. Not that I'd ever wish it on anyone. But it does seem that those Aggies who are insulated by time (whether by being older or younger) from the on-campus circumstances of the 2000's lack a fundamental understanding of the motivation of early participants in Unity Project and Student Bonfire. Or of our classmates who refused to have anything to do with Bonfire.

For some reason, our generation has largely failed to communicate our story to the rest of the Aggie community. Maybe it's because we didn't want to offend our upperclassmen by stealing the spotlight from 1999. Maybe it's because fear of retaliation from university leadership has stuck with us too long. Or maybe it's just because we've been too busy starting our own careers to be concerned with campus politics.

Anyhow, I really need to get to bed now, so I'll continue my thoughts later.

9/11/2001 was a Tuesday.

I woke up, excited to go to physics 208 where I'd see a girl I'd end up dating three years later.

Stepped out the door of Aston 342 to pick up my copy of The Eagle and heard echoes down the hall of everyone listening to the same broadcast.

Flashbacks ensued. That'd happened almost two years prior. Only then it was the whole town. I've never heard so many helicopters. There wasn't a song on an AM or FM station within range.

9/11/2001 was bad for the nation.
11/18/1999 showed B/CS how to jump into action.

I first learned of the attacks from an ENGR 212 classmate. Spent the whole class period trying to load news websites on the laptop (the internet was unusually slow that day) instead of listening to the lecture.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

The admin had to concede that they couldn't tell every student what they couldn't do when not representing the university.

You keep assuming that nothing was done to bring it back to campus, or even be affiliated with Texas A&M. Stop that. It's a poor assumption.

Texas A&M and College Station are so intertwined that Burn would have been shut down within the city limits at one point. Even Brazos County washed their hands of it.

---

What are you talking about? I just said that the school was doing everything they could to stop it 20 plus years ago because of the lawsuits and liability from it. I also said that people have hard feelings and you continue to prove that point.

A lot of time has passed since then and some people are now making an effort to bring it back, powerful people with real influence. Once again I admire the folks who created Student Bonfire and kept it alive, it was the best we could hope for based on those conditions. The question is whether or not things have changed. If you want to take your ball and run with it that's fine but the only real thing you are doing is making sure your voice won't be heard by the powerful people that matter. In fact the more you resist them the more it will be used to prove their point of the negative aspects of Bonfire even if it is done so unfairly.

I have no power but I do understand how things work. Whatever happened 20 plus years ago has very little bearing on the decisions being made now.

---

But it does. I remember my now wife being required to take down any flyer or pamphlet that mentioned off campus bonfire from their dorms. We were viewed and spoken about as trouble makers.

So what the university created was a lot of former students that were treated like crap and that view this as a pure cash grab. And those donor dollars will have bearing on anything moving forward.

---

Once again, you aren't listening.

20 years ago the University was being sued in a significant way. If they had any indication that they were supporting an off campus Bonfire that would be used against them in those lawsuits.

I also mentioned there were hard feelings and those feelings are justified. Still they are in the past. If you want to live in the past and be upset about what happened then forever you can go ahead and do so. That only removes you from any decision making though. The school can do what it wants. They can bring Bonfire back to campus or not. They can make it virtually impossible for it to be off campus or not. It's far smarter to work with the school than against it.

Or you can just remain mad about what happened back then and assume nothing can ever change.

Now you're assuming two options.

Support or squash.

The university didn't have to, and wasn't expected to, support private endeavors to carry on a tradition.

The university also didn't have to, and still isn't expected to dictate what (former) students can and cannot do while NOT representing Texas A&M.

It's not binary. There's a third option.

You really should stop making assumptions.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

trailrunner said:

---

I hope not!

I laughed when heard my old dorm, Walton, is now a coed air conditioned dorm. LOL.

---

Yeah, Walton got A/C in 2000, and Hart in 2002.

Hart became co-ed because girls wanted cheap housing too. Walton became co-ed because they offended Black people, and so the university kicked all the residents out.

---

Hart was built as an athlete's dorm so had a bathroom between every two rooms,
talk about luxury!

TexasRebel said:

---

Now you're assuming two options.

Support or squash.

The university didn't have to, and wasn't expected to, support private endeavors to carry on a tradition.

The university also didn't have to, and still isn't expected to dictate what (former) students can and cannot do while NOT representing Texas A&M.

It's not binary. There's a third option.

You really should stop making assumptions.

---

I'm not assuming anything, I have no clue what will happen. I will say though that the University has far more power than Student Bonfire. If they want to have an On Campus Bonfire and do it however they want they can do so. If they want to have that Bonfire and then sue or use their powerbase to stop Student Bonfire they can do so as well or they can make it virtually impossible to function. I don't want any of that. I don't think anyone wins if that happens but it sure seems like a lot of folks want that standoff. I don't see how any of that is in the spirit of what Bonfire is supposed to be about either, it's supposed to be about unifying Aggies not dividing them.

Maybe we end up with 2 Bonfires. Maybe we end up with just Student Bonfire. Maybe we end up with an On Campus Bonfire. Maybe all of it gets wiped away. Maybe they still have Bonfire Off Campus because they can't agree on a site but the school agrees to let the Band, Yell Leaders, and Football Team be a part of it. Who knows. I'm just saying that A&M has far more power than Student Bonfire if they choose to use it and Student Bonfire would be wise to at least try to work with the school if there is interest from the school in getting it back On Campus.

Simply saying FU and talking about what happened 20 years ago as a reason isn't smart when going up against a monster like what A&M can be when it wants to be. Much better to try and be involved in good faith and if it breaks down so be it, at least your concerns can be voiced at the table and people are more likely to listen. Maybe it goes how you expect, maybe not. Maybe there are some compromises both sides can live with, maybe not. If you want a hard line of 100% Student run with no professional oversight then no, it's never going to be back On Campus. A&M cannot take on that level of liability.

Do as you will though.

Sounds good. Students or nothing.