Thank you - That I can understand.

Post #38,420 by Ashton 5/13/02 1:13:22 AM Reply	Thank you - That I can understand. There's enough to make some sense. Nor have I any reason to doubt your explanation of the consequences of filling in one of countless rills.. with another one practically adjacent. Hell, I'll even agree that the Press is entirely apt to focus upon the imagined "rampant destruction" - sans the foggiest idea of the er 'moon-crater?' aspect of that territory. Sounds as if you've seen the place.. We have no quarrel re awareness of what 'tailings' mean in the above machinations or any future ones which would ignore them. (via Bushie or any other entity). We can also see via -physics- how much energy would be wasted, were the Ideal Solution of "musical dumps" to be invoked for some PR value... {sigh} I may get close, too - whenever I can get act together to visit some friends in Asheville NC, where I will at least be introduced to the Smokies and.. Carl Sandburg's Connemara. WVA on list as possible swing, too. At present rate of airport madness - maybe drive, so have wheels too. Nahhh.. I have little idea of how effective are modern scrubbers VS the utilization of this hi-Sulfur content coal. I merely presume that this is a problem of the sort which Can be engineered around; if not - how many expen$ive auto catalytic converters will be cancelled out, for these jobs? Rock -->\|Miners\|<-- Hard Place :( We are supposed to be smart and anticipate helping ordinary humans to subsist - without also humiliating each one as a 'deadbeat'. Aren't we? We all saw what Maggie Thatcher's solution was: kill off the mines/miners (aptly critiqued in Brassed Off, an especially delightful pic IMO even for just folks like myself who love the Colliery Bands). Another 'unintended consequence': whether or not these bands can survive on their considerable virtuosity - absent the sponsorship of the parent org. Selfishly and from afar: that loss I'd feel more than I could be capable of truly empathizing with the stark position of the miners in UK. "Feel for" sounds a bit hollow in such cases. While being agreeable :-) I suppose I might add that - indeed I Can appreciate that 'bizness' is apt to operate in any legal niche as can be found. And maybe the above matters re WVA makes it clear enough that. often enough - a "dirty bizness" is an effect rather than a cause. This whereas, in the case of Billy and his Barbarian Horde of kids whose civics education was cut short - extra-legal viciousness is a purely optional aspect of manic-greed. So there are indeed ordinary businesses and then there are nasty bizness droids -- my lawful prey. Sadly -- all intermixed, both kinds buy our Representatives away from 'us'. So I gotta keep imagining that, despite the odds of where the Power resides: we shall either reform Corporate law or - the progression seems about obvious by now. Should your present Corp stray from Righteousness, will be pleased to lend you a slightly used lance ;-) Remember: as a local rep of IWETHEY - it's your responsibility to steadfastly keep them CIEIOs from fanciful lustings about Spanish villas (by selling the middle managers into slavery, say - or sending them to relieve the miners?). Y'know? Ashton Corrupting Powerful Machines since.. the Pinto.
Post #38,447 by Brandioch 5/13/02 9:56:08 AM Reply	Zero-sum vs equilibrium While being agreeable :-) I suppose I might add that - indeed I Can appreciate that 'bizness' is apt to operate in any legal niche as can be found. Think "life". When the eco-system changes, the inhabitants find a new equilibrium. The same with biz-ness. The legalities are part of their eco-system. As the legalities of what they do changes, the biz-nesses will find a new equilibrium. Not that there might not be pain for the individuals involved in the biz. Not that some companies might fail. But there exists the opportunity for NEW companies to flourish. Isn't it strange how you never see "Conservatives" trying to conserve the envirnoment? Instead, they seem to be focused on "conserving" the current biz-ness practices.
Post #38,466 by bepatient 5/13/02 12:23:16 PM Reply	Re: Zero-sum vs equilibrium Think "life". When the eco-system changes, the inhabitants find a new equilibrium. Or go extinct. As the legalities of what they do changes, the biz-nesses will find a new equilibrium. That is indeed the question. Where is that new equalibrium and what is the cost to society of attaining it? Not that there might not be pain for the individuals involved in the biz. Or the thousands of employees whose life depends on it. But there exists the opportunity for NEW companies to flourish. Unless those new companies locate in the backwoods of WV...see above. Isn't it strange how you never see "Conservatives" trying to conserve the envirnoment?. Care to tell me who signed the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,468 by Brandioch 5/13/02 12:47:57 PM Reply	You make it far too easy. Or the thousands of employees whose life depends on it. Awwww, and think of all those poor blacksmiths who were out of a job making horse shoes. Or the buggy whip industry. And so on and so forth. Or are you advocating a welfare state where the government supports specific industries just so people who made decisions don't have to face the consequences of those decisions?
Post #38,470 by bepatient 5/13/02 1:06:11 PM Reply	Sure... ...change focus. Brandi remains on par for the course. Funny...neither industry you mentioned (poor little babies) carried an entire state economy on its back. Don't remember either of them being critical to east coast power generation. Neither of them would have been a blow to steel production either. And you call >me< strawman. Thats rich. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,482 by Brandioch 5/13/02 2:51:08 PM Reply	Just establishing criteria. You were talking about people being out of jobs. I gave historical examples of such. Now you're talking about power generation and state economies. And you accuse ME of changing focus? Now, if it is about power generation and steel production, a more expensive, less damaging method of removal would seem appropriate. Like I said, the balance will be found. Just because you want to keep the situation the same for poluting industries...
Post #38,498 by bepatient 5/13/02 4:25:31 PM Reply	Not Just trying to make light of a situtation that you don't understand by introducing nonsense. Now you're talking about power generation and state economies Now?!? You jumped in...why don't you try >rereading< the post to Ashton. Seems in this particualer thread I've been discussing it all along. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,502 by Brandioch 5/13/02 5:00:48 PM Reply	Let's take it from the top. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38164\|You do realize that they're talking about dirt.] Yet you claim: Seems in this particualer thread I've been discussing it all along.
Post #38,503 by bepatient 5/13/02 5:04:06 PM Reply	Yawn Same, tired antics. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,579 by CRConrad 5/14/02 7:49:30 AM Reply	Double Yawn BePatient: Same, tired antics. Yes... From you. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #38,588 by bepatient 5/14/02 8:48:35 AM Reply	Can you keep up? Track this thread up. In this subthread. Notice I >DID< talk about those things that fuckwit said I did not. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,600 by CRConrad 5/14/02 9:24:22 AM Reply	With you? Dunno... But I know that you can keep up. You can keep up your constant habit of coming down on the side of Big Bizznizz, that is. No matter what the issue, no matter where and when it occurred, no matter who brings it up... Bill Patient will find a "reasonable, logical" reason to side with CorpAm. Sorry, but that's the way it looks: All I can remember from you, ever, is you posting in favour, defence, or outright praise of the Fortune 500 and the Dow-Jones Index. Sure, a reasonable, logical, non-fundamentalist thinking man, making up his mind for himself, must come down in favour of the traditional enemy of the Commie Leftist Pinko Scum, sometimes... And that's probably what you think -- or at least, what you will claim -- you are doing. But how credible is it to claim one is a reasonable, logical, non-fundamentalist thinking man, making up his mind for himself -- when one comes down Pro-Big-Biz every single time??? It was in that sense I meant my "Same, tired antics... From you". And I stand by that characterization. To convince me otherwise... Just behave otherwise, for fucking once. BTW, FWIW, the irony in the (mis-?)nomer "Conservative" struck me too, reading this thread the other day -- I remember pondering whether I should post and ask about "What is it 'conservatives' want to 'conserve', exactly? Because whatever it is, it sure doesn't seem to be the environment!" Don't you yourself see a contradiction in this? Although you would probably label most pro-environmental-conservation types as "radicals" or something -- even when it is they who want to conserve something, and you don't -- wouldn't the moniker for your view actually be more truthful, if it were something like simply "pro-business"? Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #38,623 by bepatient 5/14/02 11:19:16 AM Reply	Couple of things. There are nearly 300 registered participants on this forum. There are maybe 5 or 6 non-liberals. I have a tendency to get into these discussions because I find them fun. Without my participation...you'd all have a great time agreeing with each other...where's the fucking fun with that??? Pick the right subject and you might very well be surprised to see that I am decidedly ANTI big business in those areas. Microsoft for one. If I was all for big biz...I would be hanging out with the Ayn Rand folks telling stories and asking "Who is John Gault?" This issue is beyond big bizness...although it involves big bizness. READ...where it involves reclassifying WASTE..I am NOT in favor. Where it is dealing with overburden (dirt) I am in favor. So on this issue I both fall in favor and out of favor with the bizness. The real issue is the economy of my home state...which has pretty much nothing else to rely on. Especially deep in Appalachia where the mines are. Take away the mines and these people starve. In that case...you better have a very good reason to shut them down. Shut them down and electricty, heating oil and gas costs rise for everyone from South Carolina to Maine. Steel production in northern WV and Pennsylvania also close for good. Again, to do that you had better have a damned good reason. Keeping sulphuric acid out of the water table is a good reason. Protecting a temporary stream in the mountains of WV is not. In order to understand that you really need to know the land. As a description...this is what you get for about 800 miles...hilltop, stream, hilltop, stream, hilltop, stream, hilltop, stream. These are not full time streams either...just runoff...so EVERY VALLEY has one. There are alot of valleys there. If you listen to the knee-jerk folks quoting their numbers...you picture this wide-spread devastaion of miles and miles of land. This is, quite frankly, bullshit. If you ever get over here I'll show you. The real issue is this. A Judge and an Action Group are using the CWA to try and accomplish an objective. That is to stop this type of mining. >Technically< they have put forward an argument. Their objective has little to nothing to do with Clean Water. As for the >conservative< misonomer all you really need to do is answer the question I posed to Brandioch. Who signed those 4 monumental pieces of environmental legislation? And how does pro-bizness magically become anti-environment? Unless we all decide that communal living is the way to go...the 2 are going to >have< to co-exist. There are "radicals" on both sides. There is inconsistency on the positions of both sides. I don't know where the "commie pinko scum" thing came from...but where industry is concerned I CERTAINLY want to do it better than the former Soviet states, who have an environmental record that would make the worst US offenders seem like Mr Clean. If it is just a way of proclaiming me anti-government...then you get a B+, for I'm worse than most...but not as bad as some. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,632 by boxley 5/14/02 12:07:48 PM Reply	Inject some science here moving dirt from top of hill to bottom. The only pollution would be the traces from the vehicle moving the dirt. Same dirt on top, same dirt on bottom. Now if the argument is that dirt by its nature is a pollutant, then your going to die unless you move on a boat. Unless you have watched one too many Segal movies :) me dux thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #38,643 by Brandioch 5/14/02 1:28:22 PM Reply	My observations. At the point where Bill "Strawman" Patient replies with NO references or facts or ANYTHING other than his usual non-comment, I drop the thread. Take this one, for example. It started out about the current regime wanting to re-write laws to okay a practice the EPA has not been enforcing. "Strawman" says "it's just dirt". When hammered on this, "Strawman" backs off and says it MIGHT not be "just dirt". Then he goes on about jobs and hurting the state's economy. When I point out that jobs DO end, he complains that it's about energy, too and that he's been saying this since the beginning of the thread. At which point I provide a LINK to the beginning of the thread (the place he said that he started saying it's about energy and state economies). At which point Bill retreated to his personal insults and non-comments. So I dropped the thread. Yes, you've noticed that "Strawman" >ALWAYS< comes down in favour of the government and corporations. Even when he has to mis-represent himself or the facts ("it's just dirt"). Hammer on him for referenced facts and all you'll get are personal attacks. This is his pattern. No facts. No substantiation. Claims of secret knowledge. Personal attacks. Not to mention the dreaded "Strawman". So why waste time right-shifting the forum. I won't say "discussion" or "thread" as there isn't one once he's reached that point.
Post #38,662 by bepatient 5/14/02 3:13:11 PM Reply	Hmmm. I'm sure you make an objective observation. Along the lines of trying to say that some mythical buggy whip manufacturer controlled a state economy..and the end of those jobs meant these people should "just adapt". The first paragraph of the article claimed the material to be "dirt and rock". So I believe "its just dirt" is a pretty apt description...unless you >need< the rock to maintain focus. An article was then introduced that questioned that initial premise...and said that the rule change may allow mine waste to be dumped. A practice that has been banned and should remain so...due to the circumstances that were discussed with Imric in one of the initial offshoots. I said that particular reclassification would be bad. Agreeing with the initial post that that would, indeed, be a significant rewrite of the CWA. Maybe I need to say these things specifically in order for you to get it...who knows. Then Ash started this subthread...which may be a problem...by not being so ever-fucking specific with you...I said the beginning of the thread...and not the beginning of this particular line of posts....which appears to be too complicated...because you linked to the top as opposed to direct line where 6 posts prior I did, as a matter af fact, reference the economic effect of your "just adapt" idiocy...before you even brought it up to "establish criteria" (laugh) With me so far? And you are one to throw stones about >personal attacks<. With me, those are reserved specifically for you. ask around. You, however, seem to share the wealth with anyone who has the misfortune of having an opinion different than the one held by our lord most high, Brandioch. And this is a fine example of you dropping a thread. Move it somewhere else in a fight for the chance to get in one more dig. Tired. Yawn. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,674 by Brandioch 5/14/02 4:29:13 PM Reply	Bill "Strawman" Patient. I'm sure you make an objective observation. Yes. I do. Along the lines of trying to say that some mythical buggy whip manufacturer controlled a state economy.. And you have just confirmed my reference to your use of strawmen as a standard "discussion" practice. The first paragraph of the article claimed the material to be "dirt and rock". Yep. You stop looking once you've found something that you think will validate your corporate masters. And so on and so forth. You continue in the same manner. Hey, Mr. Strawman, this is what "End of Thread" means.
Post #38,677 by bepatient 5/14/02 4:39:15 PM Reply	Oh... ...you can't invalidate any of it. See ya round. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,678 by bepatient 5/14/02 4:39:31 PM 5/14/02 4:40:35 PM Reply	there need not be 2 You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient May 14, 2002, 04:40:35 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!