PDA

View Full Version : eLROY, please answer


03-03-2002, 08:56 PM
eLROY, on Friday March 1st, you wrote the following:


First of all, "forestation" of the Earth has risen - unless you use a contrived definition of "forestation" - in which case you can say anything you want.


I pulled out my well worn copy of "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (And Other Observations)" and turned to page 225, where Al Franken was again exposing Limbaugh as the lying pig that he is. It seems that Rush Limbaugh wrote in his book, "See, I Told You So" that: “There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492.”


I’m trying to imagine that your statement (Rush’s statement, really) is indeed true. I try to imagine that back in 1492, more than 250 years before the industrial revolution, there were fewer trees on the planet than there are now. It’s an absolutely ridiculous statement. That you would try to spread a lie of that magnitude leads me to one of two conclusions. Either you’re a complete dimwit, or you know exactly what you’re doing (lying your ass off). Since I’ve come to the second conclusion (that you’re a no good lying pig), I’ll ask my two questions again. Don’t go running off at the mouth, just answer the questions. Here they are again. Simple questions, I think. I answered your pointed questions, so I think you owe me this much.


1) Are you a huge Rush Limbaugh fan?

2) Do you refer to yourself as a “dittohead”?

03-03-2002, 11:34 PM
Ripdog:


I am not a dittohead but something about your posts has been bothering me. You stated that the statement: "I try to imagine that back in 1492, more than 250 years before the industrial revolution, there were fewer trees on the planet than there are now" is "ridiculous" and called someone a liar and an idiot for using it. "It is ridiculous" and "you are an idiot" are not reasonable arguements. Show counterevidence and stop the namecalling. Also, Al Franken is not a political expert, he is a comedian. Rush Limbaugh may be wrong very often, but from what I have read of his, he does have reasons for his beliefs and does not intentionally spread false information. Franken's book title in itself shows his immaturity and lack of credibility.


I know Elroy was goading you, and I understand why you are quesioning him. I am just asking you to make sure to keep your arguements at least semi-logical.


About the forests, my understanding of the claim is that most of America was empty wasteland before Columbus came over. I don't know if it's true or not, but it is certainly possible. I do know however that you rewrote this statement as "there are more trees on the planet" which is an extension of the statement which obviously changes the meaning. You are twisting someone's words then using them against him.


-Glenn...the logic police.

03-04-2002, 12:49 AM
no need to argue over (simple) facts.


just look it up.


youve got the whole internet.


brad

03-04-2002, 05:10 AM
Rush Limbaugh probably had spotted owls for dinner. He might be a sincere guy and a great guy and all that, but I sort of think David Letterman may have been right when he called him a big fat pumpkinhead. Just my biased, unfounded impressions about a guy whose show I saw a few times.

03-04-2002, 08:59 AM
Alger talking to himself again.

03-04-2002, 09:33 AM
Which explains why Christmas cartoons did not predict the actual frozenness - or not - of the North Pole.


Now, the plain truth about man and plants and trees is that MAN DIVERTS RIVERS AND STREAMS TO DRY PATCHES OF LAND. Trees and plants need rain and/or irrigation. Man doesn't change the first, but he sure changes the second. Forget imagining, you need only go to the local historical society in any given town - and look at those yellowed old pictures - to see that as the number of buildings and dwellings has risen, so has the number of trees. Any old detail map of a typical town west of the Mississipi will show it with only a few scrubby bushes over a foot tall, hanging on for dear life at the bends of the occasional stream, with rare patches of trees in natural low spots being few and far between.


The plain truth is that most trees and plants in this country are, in effect, farmed - we grew them in the last few hundred years! The Northeast and Canada, where most of the trees for The Great Railroads were taken from (since replaced), are an anomaly. But if you think man can stop trees and bushes from growing in these naturally wet places by chopping them down as fast as he can, think again. Try just keeping the weeds off your own property!


Now, don't all gases diffract light and retain heat, so aren't all gases "greenhouse" gases by your definition? And how are some of those obscure CCHM4P5 things more "warming" than oxygen?


eLROY

03-04-2002, 10:45 AM
In an earlier post M said,


"A few years ago a Russian icebreaker found its way to the geographic spot known as the North Pole--and looked down and around at: water, not ice. Yes, it found water instead of ice at the North Pole."


In reality, no icebreaker "found" its way to anything, as if these aircraft-carrier-sized, nuclear-powered things are just out there meandering at random! In reality, it was going on a designed course to the North Pole to take tourists there! Meaning, they fully EXPECTED the ice to be thin enough that they could get awfully close in a short period of time.


They KNEW the ice is always thin enough to steam right through most of those areas, and so they confidently plotted a course straight for the North Pole. By chance, in the known random variations of the ice around "thin," the spot at the exact North Pole was near zero thickness.


But the sad thing is, M didn't cook this up to fool people, rather, he was willingly - if not eagerly - fooled himself, and just passed it on! Which brings us to ripdog's "pointed questions" to me,


1) Are you a huge Rush Limbaugh fan?

2) Do you refer to yourself as a “dittohead”?


What he is implying, essentially, is that on one side there are scientific facts, and on the other side are just secondhand lies, which are passed on and on and on as the truth by unwitting dupes. He is challenging me to admit that I have no thoughts of my own, and that I am just sponge-and-vector for mind-numbed blather.


In other words, by dittohead, he is suggesting that we cling to lies which are only true because a critical mass of idiots has been duped into believing them by a clever manipulator, whereas ripdog and his comrades are a lone candle in the wilderness carrying their insights of science.


But, in reality - by his own admission - ripdogs's scientific method consists of "I'm trying to imagine..., I'm trying to imagine..." which I easily blasted apart with a simple real-life scenario involving sprinklers.


And in reality, the critical mass of dupes are the high-paying tourists, and the Christmas-cartoon watchers - but not the tour-boat captains - who expected there to be an impenetrable mountain of ice and snow around the North Pole in the first place.


And the Rainforest Action Group people - who prey upon college students with their free time and "parental g's" - are the propagandists making idiots and robots out of people like you, ripdog.


In reality, there are not even any original, unbiased environmental statistics collected which an honest scientist - as opposed to a fund-raiser - could then perform an analysis of. But of course people in the EPA and elsewhere will spend their money manufacturing enough stats and stories to scare us into paying the bills and keeping them in business.


So, environmentalists basically come in two flavors, 1) communists, who use scare stories as an excuse to grab and restrict property rights, and 2) pure hustlers, who just need to produce some evidence that their ongoing existence is direly needed. And anti-environmentalists basically come in one flavor, people who want clean water and clean air - same as everybody else - but who don't want to be robbed by or foot the bill for these swarming charlatans.


And as a final note, I will say it is interesting that the primary people who fall prey to these enviro-hustlers are city-dwellers, whose own personal - but narrow and extremely biased - statistical samples suggest high temperatures, pollution, and over-population. And they don't own cars, because they don't need them, and can't afford to park them. But someday, instead of bitching a bunch of blather and revealing themselves for the asses they are, they need to just get out and drive around, and see the world as it really is beyond their narrow sphere, for once.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 11:05 AM
It is also amusing to note that, since global warming can never be disproved for every specific time interval, there will essentially be an inexhaustible supply of it on enviro-hustlers shelves to sell!


Global warming is so abstract, it crosses over into the realm of Dante's Inferno, and The Bogeyman. It's not like other environmnetal "disasters," which can actually be measured and quantified, eventually, at some cost.


There is literally nothing the real scientists can do to short-circuit the hustlers scaring people into paying their bills. All the honest scientists can offer is uncertainty, giving the hustlers the very soil in which they will always be able to sow some amount of fear.


Global-warming fear - and therefore snake-oil salesmen promising a fix - will literally never go away. Either pay us your pennance, or you will surely burn in the fires of some abstract hell.


Fortunately, however, rather than perishing to dust, it is the Bush voters - with their driveways full of multiple SUV's all across the heartland - who are being fruitful and multiplying. And it is the bitter, left-wing ninnies - holed up alone in their studio apartments in Manhattan at age 35 - who are refraining from having any children to pass their silly ideas on to.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 01:00 PM
So you're not getting your information from the Rush Limbaugh radio program? I listed my questions very simply for you. That you feel the need to resort to chicanery tells me a lot about you. So once again--ANSWER THE QUESTION ALREADY!!!!

03-04-2002, 01:12 PM
Actually, I came right out and said I believe that eLROY is NOT an idiot(just a lying piggy). What I think he's doing is pulling stats from every right wing source he can find to argue against environmentalist causes. I think that the truth lies somewhere in between the nutcase right and the nutcase left. The stat I saw on forestation said there were two thirds more forest when the constitution was penned than there are now. I just want to know eLROY's sources of info--info that he's not willing to part with. Look at his bloated responses below. I didn't ask for any of that. I suspect he's quoting Limbaugh and want him to own up to it.

03-04-2002, 02:22 PM
If you're asking me for a link to a web page detailing the exact total hyrocarbon content in plants and trees on Earth in the year 1492, there is no such web page, and there never will be. So what?


So far as Rush Limbaugh, I had an AM headset implanted under my skin 7 years ago, to make sure I never, ever miss a show. So what?


Oh wait, I see how your game is supposed to work. I'm supposed to weave assertions too far reaching and complex to ever counter with facts, and then challenge you to disprove them. Hah:)


You're funny. Now touch my property, and I will track you down personally and skin you alive.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 03:03 PM
You saw a "stat" on "forestation" in the year the Constitution was penned?


Good grief, you ARE a sucker! You'll believe anything, put out by anyone, that jives with your prior "imagination."


But if you think I'm going to go and make up a lie in the same manner, even knowing full well that suckers will be all to eager to latch onto it, think again.


When I want to have a good time at the expense of ignorant suckers who can't sort out what's going on, I restrict myself to playing poker against them.


It is true, only a right-wing liar could disprove stats as fast as left-wing liars can invent them.


So they'll keep inventing, you'll keep buying it, and I'll keep laughing.


If I didn't have an irrepressible love for my fellow man, I might even consider getting in on the gig!


co2 plus h2o plus carbon plus sunlight equals wood, fibers, proteins, sugars, oils, and o2. The primary scare factor restricting the process is h20, the secondary is loose carbon and other minerals. people divert h2o, from high-mountain granite watersheds above sedimentary rock, onto loose carbon in sunny spots before it flows into the ocean and, in doing so, farm oxygen. Even algae, sustained on tilled farmland runoff, can be like a great forest in the sea.


Trees specifically? They're up too, not only as an accidental byproduct of the diverted water, but people just love'em! People farm timber to build houses on empty plains and mountainsides, and then divert water to landscape trees around the houses. They farm Christmas trees to put inside the houses. When was the last time a single healthy tree was cut down that some idiot didn't cry about it?


Now, so far as narrowly-defined, focal pockets of "the rainforest" that were cut down, been their lately? It's wall-to-wall plants, and the diverted water is reclaimed and used for farms. The farms grow plants, and turn them over - and thereby farm oxygen - at at least as vibrant a rate per acre as even a rainforest. Ever heard of a wimpy rainforest sucking all the minerals out of a tract of land?


Now, so far as truly wild trees, I wouldn't claim to know, and neither would anybody else. Except that if a tree that is cut down is truly wild, the forest replaces it awfully quickly. Though, apparently, in these faux-wild National Parks and National Forests, we actually have the problem of too many trees, because of fire control.


Let's face it, if you assume 1 tree was displaced for every spot you see a light from an airplane, you're still not talking about a meaningful percentage of the surface of the globe. And, more often than not, water has been diverted towards those lights, to result in more trees! Have "wild" forests decreased in acreage? Yes, if building a road through something, or building a house so that someone will pay to put out fires, disqualifies it as wild, then yes.


But are there fewer trees? No way. Not a chance.


Do you know of anyplace - and this is measurable - where the water table is rising? Is the sky cloudier, in terms of H2o vapor content, than it used to be? All that is certain is that more h20 is exposed to more carbon, co2, and sunlight, than it used to be, on its way to the ocean, and there are plant spores everywhere. And nature, irrepressible as she is, takes care of the rest.


Though most people have a preference for food, and then trees, whereas moss and algae are way down on the list, if we can help it:)


eLROY

03-04-2002, 03:54 PM
One time, I was driving around an expensive neighborhood, looking at nice houses. I'm into architecture.


I saw many beauties - tudors, ranches, victorians, moderns, you name it - which exploited their vistas and landscapes in many innovative ways.


The one thing I could not figure out was why all these people had chosen to build their masterpieces so close to the road!!


eLROY

03-04-2002, 04:02 PM
M,


I've mentioned this before, I think, but my favorite Rush moment occured when he used the word "hyperbole" and pronounced it as if it rhymed with "Superbowl." Ever wonder why his radio show sponsors sell stuff like improve your vocabulary kits and Hooked On Phonics?


Here's the sales pitch: "Yes, you, too, can become an intellectual. And none of that time- consuming stuff for you like reading or college. No, simply learn a few big words, such as "faradize" or "virago" and startle your friends and business associates with your acumen."


John

03-04-2002, 04:28 PM
Thank you. Now that we all know where you get your information, we can take what you have to say with a grain of salt. But wait--you almost got away with one here. Do you refer to yourself as a "dittohead"?

03-04-2002, 04:40 PM
eLROY: "So, environmentalists basically come in two flavors, 1) communists, who use scare stories as an excuse to grab and restrict property rights, and 2) pure hustlers, who just need to produce some evidence that their ongoing existence is direly needed. And anti-environmentalists basically come in one flavor, people who want clean water and clean air - same as everybody else - but who don't want to be robbed by or foot the bill for these swarming charlatans."


Does the Sierra Club comes in one of these flavors?

03-04-2002, 04:41 PM

03-04-2002, 05:03 PM
It's funny - but revealing - what you call "information," ripdog.


Now, suppose I got "information" about the number of trees in 1492 from Rush Limbaugh, and you got "information" to the contrary from someone else. Explain, again, how I'm supposed to figure out which one isn't the liar?


The simple fact that you would reduce it to a competition of credibility proves that you have no firsthand idea what you are talking about, and never will. All you can do is listen and parrot. You are, in effect, admitting you have chosen to play in a fact-free arena, where the only challenge is tailoring lies to suckers like you.


For a moron, such as yourself, in a world of hustlers, it is true, life is nothing but an endless job of allocating grains of salt. You never will know what to believe, will you ripdog?


I have a funny question, though. Are you just, like, a college freshman, or are you this dumb at age 40, ripdog?


And when you say I almost "got away with one," can you please clarify? Or are you simply living in a world surrounded by a storm of words and ideas which you can't fathom, and so you have developed a sort of kindergarten labeling system to keep the imponderables in order inside your little head?


So when you said "thank you," I can take that to mean "Thank you for not talking all that complicated stuff no more, just tell me if you voted for Al Gore." Is that it, you're thanking me for dumbing it down a tad?


So what did I "almost" get away with?


Because whatever it is, I can promise you the guy who told you how many trees there were in 1492 already got away with it a long time ago!


You are a carbon copy - a ditto if you prefer - of my airhead girlfriend when I was 18 years old:) But at least she married rich, and can now spend her days mailing donation checks off to hustlers. If you don't have a trust fund, I'm wondering what you are going to do? Because you're not making a dime hustling anybody here!


Oh, and who is this "we all?" By that, do you simply mean yourself posting under multiple names?


It is true that, with someone as dumb as yourself, anybody whom you give your ear is going to pump it full of garbage like a cheap whore in about five seconds. In fact, someone already has. Now, I'm glad you have enough salt to handle Mr. Limbaugh at least. But you better come up with more in a hurry, because they're coming at fools like you from all directions.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 05:05 PM

03-04-2002, 06:53 PM
eLROY: "So, environmentalists basically come in two flavors, 1) communists, who use scare stories as an excuse to grab and restrict property rights, and..."


M: Just observing that Communist China and the former USSR have absolutely horrendous environmental track records.

03-04-2002, 06:55 PM
I'm a 35 year old college junior. I worked as a mechanic for the past 15 years, supported my wife through her BSCE and her MSCE, and am now back in school. See, I'm even smarter than your airhead girlfriend. I paid my wife's expenses with the agreement that when she was making big bucks it would be my turn. I'm currently finishing up the Intro to Chem and Intro to Biol series, skimming the surface as it were. I want to get out in the salt water and deal with the issues there. The introduction of invasive species really interests me. The plight of the Orca is another direction I could head.


I don't pretend to know every minute detail about these subjects. Furthermore, I don't take the word of any of these studies as the Gospel. As I've said before, the studies put forth a theory. A theory that will never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What does bother me is when people like you spout about "forestation", twisting the logic by coming up with some half-assed definition of the word. Kind of like Clinton's definition of sex, or Gingrich saying that oral sex doesn't count as adultry. If I cut down 20 200 foot Douglas Firs and plant 40 1 foot seedlings in their place, have I increased the level of "forestation" on the earth? Can the 40 one footers absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide as one 200 footer? I know you're going to glom on to something I've written here and beat it into the ground, working in the phrase moron or idiot at every opportunity. I'm sorry that I let myself get sucked into the name calling. That is where any real discussion ended, so I won't be responding to any more posts in this thread. Feel free to flame my next post, though. Let's just be civil about it.


I'm sorry I called you names. Although I haven't met you in person, I get the impression that you are above average in intelligence. I hope we can disagree in the future without having the thread deteriorate into an infantile piss-fest. I still hate Limbaugh, though. Oh yeah, I voted for Nader. Niether Bush or Gore looked appetizing to me, a couple of real boobs.

03-04-2002, 07:01 PM
OK eLROY I know you are talking about American communists. But do you realy think it is credible that they are trying to restrict property rights by supporting environmentalist causes.

03-04-2002, 07:09 PM
eLROY, perhaps, as you say, global warming cannot be easily or otherwise proven (or perhaps it can). However given that the potential consequences of global warming could be very serious, why assume it is "safe 'til proven dangerous?" And given that there are some reasons to suspect that global warming may be occurring, this argument strikes me as being a bit akin to the decades of cigarette company protests that cigarettes hadn't been proven harmful. Granted the cigarette dangers may have been better documented, but it still strikes me as a dangerous and ill-advised attitude.

03-04-2002, 07:22 PM

03-04-2002, 07:54 PM
Point 1 was that, though the globe must be getting warmer or cooler, you'll have as much luck predicting which as predicting the stock market.


Point 2 was, even if you could predict it better than the stock market, you'll have even less luck doing something about it.


To completely eliminate the manmade risk, you'd have to literally shut down the entire planet. If you are going to stop short of that, somebody has to decide where to stop, and somebody has to enforce that stoppage at the local level.


You put that much economic power in the hands of the mob or their central delegate authority, and take that much choice away from individuals, you're going to have to ask what incentives will that dictator be operating under, and using what information?


To start with, what is the incentive to prevent global warming? The incentive is to satisfy the mob, no government authority will pay the price for warmth in his lifetime. And how will the mob know when they are satisfied or not? Can the individual who casts his vote take his own global temperature reading?


It is impossible to construct a decision-making body which will pay a price if their decisions about global warming are wrong, or if their measurements are wrong, or whatever. Put more simply, it is impossible to construct a structure whose immediate survival is based on whether it ultimately changes the temperature of the globe.


Therefore, while people may be foolish enough to give someone the economic power it would literally take to change the temperature of the globe, that power would only be wielded - by necessity - to perpetuate the survival of the structure. Otherwise, someone else more unscrupulous and pandering will come along and steal the power.


Power is only wielded towards one end: keeping it. And once they have enough power to tell you what size car you can drive and what size toilet you can use, they will have enough power to do and say whatever they want, and to stay in power forever, regardless of what happens to the atmosphere.


To understand what kind of world will have been created, pick up a book called "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek,


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0226320618/reader/2/002-7468257-0447233#reader-link


and read the chapter "Why The Worst Get On Top."


Mind you, this is just the political outcome, before you even start counting how much money and lives you would throw away on an unquantifiable fear, even if that stated aim were somehow realized. You're actually opening yourself up to the idea of being made immeasurably poorer just because some power monger is able to sacre you into believing global warming is possible.


It's absolute madness what freedoms people will give up over the tiniest sliver of hope or fear, the most far-fetched promise. People would embrace communism just for "free" healthcare. Then, when the free healthcare failed to materialize out of thin air, it would take the bloodshed and starvation of millions just to win the right to manufacture and purchase your own healthcare back.


Nobody, in the history of man, has ever won anything by giving up their freedom. You lose the freedom to bargain what it is you gave up your freedom for.


And again, to have a measurable impact on the chemical progression of the Earth's crust, people would literally have to shut down their entire lives and have fewer children. All based on a mere possibility? A possibility whose likelihood is characterized in proportion to how much power over your life the salesman hopes to entice you to forfeit to him.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 08:04 PM
This idea that you can help a living thing through tough times, until it reaches critical mass or economies of scale or something - like an Internet incubator - is just wrong.


Eventually, that creature will sniff out his missing rung on the ladder again, and again and again, and will either be permanently dependent on you, of fall flat on its face.


And why is it that the same people who think men are just hairless apes think that every mutant species that ever crawled out of the muck needs to be propped up indefinitely?


If I were God, the first creature I'd dispose of would be the miserable panda bear. And if their ideal environment ever popped up again, a new panda-bear-like creature would pop up to fill the entropic space.


eLROY

03-04-2002, 08:06 PM

03-04-2002, 09:29 PM
eLROY believes that Ralph Nader's program is quite similar to that of Adolph Hitler. Above average in intelligence? Quite possibly. Very weird? Definitely.

03-04-2002, 10:05 PM
A better definition of arrogance might be: Substantially poisoning the air and water of others and claiming it doesn't matter.

03-04-2002, 10:34 PM
Seriously, M, you can throw any hypothetical out there you want, and then say give up money, and give so-and-so power, to try to stop it. And why did you use the word substantially? Are we drawing lines, and making tradeoffs here? And where does the size of my toilet come into this? And who has been poisoned?


Besides, the theoretical you proposed isn't arrogance, it's selfishness. Arrogance is to presume you can do something complicated and difficult, like...


eLROY

03-04-2002, 10:59 PM
Substantially poisoning the water and air of others is selfishness. Claiming it's always OK to do so is arrogance. Of course there are lots of variables which is why I used the word "substantially."

03-04-2002, 11:04 PM
"create dependents"


???

You are dependent on the ecosystem

03-05-2002, 12:16 AM
While what you say may be true about "plants" in general, I'm not quite sure if it is the same as "forestation". The difference may be more than semantic, I don't claim to know. However, your continuous referral to environementalists as "communists" is a bit disturbing. Forget the tree hugger types. Many of the people doing environmental research are academicians. You can't call these people commies just because they aren't in the corporate world. You seem to think that all those who say that industry is destroying the earth have a property grabbing agenda. How can you pigeonhole ALL environmental researchers and organizations in such a preposterous way?

03-05-2002, 12:57 AM

03-05-2002, 07:36 AM
doesnt take everybody.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134379971_lynxed19.html


http://www.fresnobee.com/24hour/nation/story/278992p-2521988c.html


and just to be clear, why important to find lynx? to grab land.


brad

03-05-2002, 08:44 AM
So because a few low level biologists are unethical, the entire environmental scientific community is a sham? And who exactly were these guys "grabbing land" for? Karl Marx?

03-05-2002, 09:35 AM
look at who funds the environmental movement.


anyway, do you think it is so hard to believe that powerful groups will use any means at their disposal to achieve an end?


look up 'useful idiot'.


maybe youve heard that SUV's may be taxed because their environmentally unfriendly. do you think this is a good idea? do you think this is compatible with traditional american values?


also i dont think the 'entire' environmental movement is a sham. i think chloro-flouro carbons and ozone depletion is good science and banning them is a good thing.


i think youre reading the wrong thing into what im saying.


brad

03-05-2002, 10:50 AM

03-05-2002, 01:09 PM
>look at who funds the environmental movement.


Who funds it? A lot of environmental research is done through colleges and universities. Are we talking about research, or the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?


>anyway, do you think it is so hard to believe >that powerful groups will use any means at their >disposal to achieve an end?


Not at all. What groups are we talking about here though?


>maybe youve heard that SUV's may be taxed >because their environmentally unfriendly. do you >think this is a good idea? do you think this is >compatible with traditional american values?


What traditional american values are we talking about? It may be necessary when it comes to the environment to think more "socially" instead of individually. The air we breathe is shared by all. If someone's SUV is interfering with my right to clean air, why shouldn't they have to pay for it? This isn't so different from what happened with second hand smoking.


>also i dont think the 'entire' environmental >movement is a sham. i think chloro-flouro >carbons and ozone depletion is good science and >banning them is a good thing.


But how would you find out how bad CFC's were if there wasn't independent research done on CFCs? You don't think those who were using CFC's just decided to eliminate them themselves did you? This is why I think the environment is an area where independent (non-corporate sponsored) research can be our greatest weapon against ignorance.


>i think youre reading the wrong thing into what >im saying.


I wasn't trying to read anything into what you were saying. I was responding to elRoy. Unless, you are elRoy?

03-05-2002, 01:51 PM
'If someone's SUV is interfering with my right to clean air, why shouldn't they have to pay for it?'


assuming it passes emissions like any other car, then no.


'Unless, you are elRoy? '


no, im chris alger. /images/smile.gif just kidding.


brad