You use that phrase, but I do not think you understand it.

Post #32,255 by Brandioch 3/14/02 8:00:27 PM Reply	You use that phrase, but I do not think you understand it. Because its the law. Yes. It is the law. It is also the law that you not steal, kill and so on. Yet our jails are filled with people who do such. Welcome to the real world. Again, I have instance after instance after instance of examples showing that what you claim will happen JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. So then you retreat into claiming that it is the LAW! Great. And wasn't my point that they will BREAK THE LAW!?! Again, you've got some serious filtering going on. In the "real world", corporations break the law and dump contaminants into public drinking water. This is a fact. There are examples of this. In your fantasy world, they don't do that because they helped write the law saying that they can't do that. Now, if I can pull up a single case of contaminated drinking water, who's position will it support?
Post #32,257 by bepatient 3/14/02 8:45:42 PM Reply	You don't know what you're talking about. I do. Its that simple. I work in a regulated industry. I've seen every aspect of EPA regulation and enforcement. Firsthand. Failure to report, even if you are not in violation, means you are fined. You don't even have to be doing anything wrong. You're still fined. If you falsify the compliance reports. You go to jail. My industry >supports< this. We politic FOR this. Why? Because if you leave it to the eco-freaks, things get done based on knee-jerk reactionism and not on the basis of fact. One of my co-workers was one of the principle writers of the Montreal Protocol. The effect of that was to eliminate the sale of 4 of our most profitable products. But NO company would ever do anything that would harm its bottom line. NEVER. At least...not in your world. The real world is different. I work there. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,260 by Brandioch 3/14/02 9:48:21 PM Reply	Ah, the old "I have secret wisdom and you don't" ploy. I do. Its that simple. I work in a regulated industry. I've seen every aspect of EPA regulation and enforcement. Firsthand. Really? I spent 3 years working for NorthWest EnviroService which was bought by Philip Environmental during their acquisition spree. See? My secret wisdom of the ancients is just as valid as your secret wisdom of the ancients. I think that qualifies as a slam in your face. Failure to report, even if you are not in violation, means you are fined. You don't even have to be doing anything wrong. You're still fined. Oooh, but what if you DO report, but you report INCORRECT data? You know, like a >LIE<? Oh, but in your fantasy world, corporations don't ever lie, do they? That's the part of this conversation that you just can't wrap your mind around. 'Cause, in your fantasy world, corporations are the font of all that is good. Bill, they lie. They falsify records. They dump polutants into drinking water. Just deal with it or I'll have to slam you with some examples of corporations that have lied to the EPA. If you falsify the compliance reports. You go to jail. And who tells if they are falsified? My industry >supports< this. We politic FOR this. Why? Because if you leave it to the eco-freaks, things get done based on knee-jerk reactionism and not on the basis of fact. Once again we see Bill's inability to conceptualize that corporations can lie to the EPA. Well, here is another in-your-face slam, Bill. [link\|http://hellskitchen.net/issues/nyat/epa990915.html\|http://hellskitchen...a990915.html] A company falsified records that it sent to the EPA. (waits for Bill's mind to shift gears to claim this isn't what he meant at all). Here's a big ol' url: [link\|http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/4dd4675b0d06ce8b85256ab2005d6699?OpenDocument\|http://yosemite.epa...OpenDocument] Yep. Another company that falsified reports to the EPA. So, we have examples of companies that violate the laws about reporting to the EPA. Gee, doesn't that kind of support my position and not Bill's? Oh, too bad, Bill. You're wrong again. One of my co-workers was one of the principle writers of the Montreal Protocol. And I'm sure his/her mother is very proud. The effect of that was to eliminate the sale of 4 of our most profitable products. And here's a url for that. [link\|http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/05.htm\|http://www.epa.gov/...treal/05.htm] But now I'm a bit confused. You seem to imply in that statement that you're working for a company that produces hazardous materials. (note the phrase "sale of 4 of our most profitable products). Yet, in previous posts, you seemed to be stating that you were writing official EPA policy and seeking the input of corporations to help close loopholes. Hmmmmm, very curious that. But NO company would ever do anything that would harm its bottom line. NEVER. At least...not in your world. Need I remind you of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream again? Yes, some companies DO sacrifice their bottom line in order to meet their idealistic goals. Oh, but that doesn't seem to match with your earlier statements either. You were talking about polluters who helped you close the loopholes that allowed them to pollute. Now you're going for the extreme by claiming that I say that NO company would sacrifice profit for values. I didn't say that. What I said was, why would someone who is polluting help you close a loophole? My example of that was asking you how many speeders report themselves to the police. The real world is different. I work there. No, Bill. You're existing in a fantasy world that is only coincidentally similar to the real world.
Post #32,280 by ben_tilly 3/14/02 11:48:55 PM Reply	Courtesy request Please create a hyperlinks instead of just posting big old urls. Posting a single big-ass URL can make an entire thread unreadable because it widens the text too far for comfortable reading without scrolling back and forth. The hyperlink makes your point - more effectively because you can just click on it - and does not interfere with reading the rest of the thread. Thank you, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #32,303 by bepatient 3/15/02 8:20:52 AM Reply	Ah...I see. I tell you what is required by law and supported by regulated industries. You find an example or 2 of people breaking the requirements. That means that ALL COMPANIES operate that way. Your a human. Humans commit murder every day. Brandioch's a murderer. Same logic. So get out there and kill somebody...times a wastin. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,323 by Brandioch 3/15/02 10:58:50 AM Reply	Ah, since I slammed your "secret wisdom of the ancients"... you're, once again, retreating to extremes and strawmen. I tell you what is required by law and supported by regulated industries. Yes, we've established that. Look backwards to find the point where I started my speeding analogy. It is the law. NEWSFLASH: People break the laws! You find an example or 2 of people breaking the requirements. That is right. I have supported my position that PEOPLE BREAK THE LAWS. Even the EPA laws. That means that ALL COMPANIES operate that way. Umm, no. Where did you pull THAT statement out of? I've already given you an EXAMPLE of a company (Ben & Jerry's) that operates at a MORE RESTRICTIVE level than required by the government. So, there, I've just slammed ANOTHER of your arguments. Your a human. Humans commit murder every day. Brandioch's a murderer. Maybe that makes sense in YOUR world. Or is that another example of your twisted attempt at "logic"? So get out there and kill somebody...times a wastin. That's a great rebuttal of my points. So, why does it appear that you are working for a governmental agency writing policy to control poluters in one post, but in another post, you seem to be working for a company that manufactures hazardous materials? Your filters are working overtime. You can't even parse my posts. Did you miss the part about Ben & Jerry's. Or does the above sentence appear, to you as: Did you miss the part about blah blah blah leftist blah. I give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government. You say that I said all companies break the law. I, once again, give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government. You, once again, say that I said all companies break the law. Now, this is the third time I'm giving you the example of Ben & Jerry's. I'm going to bet that the repetition of this has FINALLY gotten past your filters and you'll ignore this as the concepts are just too alien for your current mental state OR you'll reply with some pathetic excuse for a barbed witticism. For everyone else, I will restate your ORIGINAL position. That the EPA >SHOULD< get the input of companies who are breaking the environmental laws (or that have found loopholes) so that they can write "better" laws (or "close" the loopholes). My counter to that was that no speeders turn themselves into the cops. Nor do they call the cops and tell them of areas that are under-patrolled. It doesn't happen. Again, my process for writing "good" laws. #1. The officials write the laws. #2. Monitoring is done (by someone other than than those being monitored). #3. If violations are found, the lawyers are sent in. #3a. If it is a violation, the company is fined (etc). #3b. If it is a loophole, go to #1 as a re-write.
Post #32,326 by bepatient 3/15/02 11:08:21 AM 3/15/02 11:09:42 AM Reply	Just applying your "logic" Sorry you can't seem to follow. I tell you how the law and industry actually work. You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto. Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better". So. Most people don't murder others. But a couple do. That makes everyone a murderer...(your logic...not mine)...except that Ben guy. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 11:09:42 AM EST Expand All History
Post #32,339 by Brandioch 3/15/02 12:39:08 PM Reply	Another successful application of filtering. Thanks for, once again, proving that I'm right. Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better". Nope. I gave Ben & Jerry's as an example of a company that holds themselves to higher standards than those required by the government. So, I did NOT say that, just because one company breaks the law, ALL companies break the law. But I expected this from you as your filters are working overtime in an attempt to spin the facts into something you can accept as "reality". I tell you how the law and industry actually work. Yet you still have trouble with whether you work for a governmental agency writing the laws or whether you work for a company that manufactures hazardous materials. And you expect me to believe that you have any real idea of how the industry works? You don't even know who monitors the companies to ensure that they're complying with the regulations. You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto. No, I point out TWO examples of companies that have LIED on their required reports to the EPA. This establishes that some companies BREAK THE LAW. But that conflicts with YOUR religion so you can't accept it. Whatever. Which brings me back to the ORIGINAL point that you're advocating having CRIMINALS help write the laws because you think they want to have their criminal activities shut down. And, like all religions, your's only makes sense if you buy into the initial fantasy. Whereas, in my experience, criminals do NOT want their activities shut down. To support my position, I have pointed out that speeders do NOT self-report themselves to the cops.
Post #32,371 by bepatient 3/15/02 3:22:50 PM 3/15/02 3:25:52 PM Reply	I can see... ...that you have no interest in how things actually work. Even after I referenced the law and its requirements. And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate). I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost. But no company in your world would ever do such a thing. By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better. Post edit--- On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now. So.. EOD You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 03:25:52 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,382 by Brandioch 3/15/02 3:55:04 PM Reply	I can see you're still filtering. Even after I referenced the law and its requirements. Bill, it is >YOU< that doesn't understand how "things really work". You can pass all the laws you want. People will still break them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the fact. And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate). Bill, that is your original position. Shall I quote one of your posts back at you? Here it is: Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost. Actually, you said "coworker". And I never said that there weren't companies that would do that. >YOU< were the one that claimed I said that. I said the the companies in VIOLATION would not do that. Which, if you read your above quoted post, was what you said they would do. But no company in your world would ever do such a thing. Once again, Ben & Jerry's. A company that holds to higher standards than the government requires. My example. Yet you >STILL< keep trying to claim that I'm saying that NO companies would do that. People, do I need to present >ANY< more evidence for mental filtering? Really? This is the 4TH time I've mentioned Ben & Jerry's and Bill >STILL< wants to claim that I say that NO company would do that. Mental filtering, people. It real. It exists. Watch Bill and you will see it in action. By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better. It's called an "analogy". You say the companies that violate EPA standards want to help toughen those standards. I say that this doesn't happen ANY PLACE ELSE. For an example, I said that speeders NEVER self-report themselves. And they don't. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now. Bill, >YOU< are the one who's job mysteriously changes from post to post. >YOU< are the one that keeps trying to re-phrase my position. Even after I clarify it. Even after I give examples of how you're attempting to re-phrase it. Bill, I really don't care what you think. I'm just illustrating how someone (you) with a pre-set agenda will filter any available "facts" to support your position. I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong on this. You "know" you're right. Even though I have years of experience in companies that also have to deal with the EPA. And I can NAME the companies I worked for. Your exact job is still undefined. Did you write policy or were you employed by a company that had to follow EPA policy? Your filters are operating so fast that you've managed to convince yourself that your industry is COMPLETELY different than any other facet of life. You can't explain this. You just KNOW that it is true. Like I said, religion, filters, beliefs.
Post #32,391 by bepatient 3/15/02 4:33:56 PM 3/15/02 4:36:45 PM Reply	No. Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous materials. Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job description. Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2 floors down. Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self report. Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report. I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes. They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion. I'm not filtering. You're doing your level best to misrepresent me. Have fun. You are now truly on your own here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 04:36:45 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,470 by Brandioch 3/16/02 8:30:22 PM Reply	Strange...... URL: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=31878\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=31878] Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending". Please compare that with this quote taken from the immediately prior post. Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous materials. Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job description. Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2 floors down. Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self report. So, you're writing policy for your own company and you think that the wordst violators in your own company can give you good input on writing that policy? Here's a term for you.... Masterbation. Who gives a FUCK what your INTERNAL policies are and how they're generated?!? Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report. That is true. But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that people who break the rules do NOT report themselves. The speeders was an easy analogy. Since you seemed to have trouble with that (and still seem to) I gave you TWO examples of companies that LLIED on their REQUIRED reports to the EPA. Violators do NOT report their violations. Even if they are REQUIRED to. I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes. Do you UNDERSTAND why I said that was masterbation? Do you? No one >CARES< what your INTERNAL policies are! You don't have any AUTHORITY over anyone else. What you do or do not do has NO IMPACT on what other companies do. They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer. You see? This is where the confusion comes in. You say >YOU< re-wrote the policy to change a previously LEGAL act into an ILLEGAL one. But you do NOT have that authority NOR is that the office you hold. Yet you >STILL< claim to have done that. I've put up the two companies I've worked for. I still don't see you doing the same. You're operating under another masterbation fantasy, Bill. You did NOT do what you claimed you did. Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules. I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion. Okay, let me put this in very small words for you...... Are you saying that your company was in violation of EPA policy? Yes/No? Think >VERY< carefully about your answer there. You know what happens if you answer "yes". If not, then my point (allow me to quote it back to you "Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.") is valid as your company did NOT meet the criteria for that statement (note the part about "violate the rules"). Now, if your company did NOT violate the rules, then your company does NOT match my criteria and, once again, you have proven my point about your inability to read with comprehension (due to the vast quantity of filters you have running in your head). If your company DID violate the EPA rules (well, well, what was that about "moral" companies the other day?) then >YOU< did NOTHING to strengthen the EPA rules, only your INTERNAL policies. Either way, your original hypothesis has been disproven (based upon this example). Unless your company DID violate the EPA policy AND self-reported it AND worked to toughen the EPA's policy. If so, please provide the name of your company for verification. You seem more than a bit confused on whether you write EPA policy or not and whether your company is/was in violation or not. In fact, your "facts" seem to change from post to post. Not that I would EVER doubt your veracity. Never ever.
Post #32,476 by bepatient 3/16/02 8:53:07 PM Reply	Nope. You can't read. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,481 by Brandioch 3/16/02 9:26:19 PM Reply	When pressed for actual facts..... Bill Patient will (as most Republicans) run and hide. I gave the names of both environmental companies I worked for. Bill refuses to name the company he works for. Bill also refuses to state whether said company was actually in violation of EPA policy or was not. Bill Patient, a model Republican and working for a moral company. (I'll just bookmark this thread for reference in future discussions, okay, Bill?)
Post #32,486 by bepatient 3/16/02 10:18:54 PM 3/16/02 10:20:09 PM Reply	Sure...no sweat. We won't be having any. And I'm not a Republican. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 16, 2002, 10:20:09 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,507 by Brandioch 3/17/02 11:54:02 AM Reply	Why so fact aversive? What are you afraid of? Why can I detail my experiences and you try to hide behind a veil of secret ancient wisdom? Hmmmmmmm??????? What are you trying to hide? And I'm not a Republican. Oh, sorry, I really meant "conservative compassionate". Not "Republican". Never "Republican". Or whatever you want to call yourself these days. Looks like a Walks like a Quacks like a
Post #32,509 by bepatient 3/17/02 12:24:01 PM 3/17/02 12:25:55 PM Reply	this space left blank You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient March 17, 2002, 12:25:55 PM EST Expand All History
Post #32,512 by Brandioch 3/17/02 2:33:01 PM Reply	Again, why are you afraid of the facts? Why can't you answer a simple question? Hmmmmm? Claim illiteracy all you want. But it's hard to read when you won't write the answer. Does this make my third request for a response? You fear is what makes you weak.
Post #32,525 by mmoffitt 3/17/02 6:34:53 PM Reply	Clarification please. In my world, (a place requiring a much more Left-jaded field of vision than I suspect you're capable of ;0), a person who knowingly violates "the spirit of the law" is as culpable as some one who violates the law literally. You seem to be here: >>They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. drawing a distinction that I, and I suspect Brandioch, does not draw.
Post #32,529 by Brandioch 3/17/02 7:24:14 PM Reply	Technically not criminals. But I'm still wondering why someone who seeks to use a loophole to advantage his/her company would work to close said loophole.
Post #32,531 by mmoffitt 3/17/02 7:38:38 PM Reply	That is indeed a fascinating notion.
Post #32,539 by a6l6e6x 3/18/02 12:50:51 AM Reply	Perhaps competing companies are better at working a loop... hole. In other words, "This rule would hurt us, but it will hurt XYZ a lot more". Is you deviousness mode switch turned off? :) Alex "Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
Post #32,679 by Brandioch 3/18/02 9:46:51 PM Reply	Possibly. But it requires a great deal of knowledge of your competitor's business.

Welcome to IWETHEY!