Oil/location report...

wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Un-****in'-believable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jun 8, 2:17*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Un-****in'-believable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is with rdean's I
LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME
reporting on the spill.

Could the bitching be agenda-based............nah........not for
gentlemen fly fishers.

oz, a long way from the gulf

On Jun 8, 1:56*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:09:58 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:49*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:03:00 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
don't worry, be happy snipped

This web page mildly interesting. It superimposes the oil spill
on your location to give you a better sense of the scale.

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

I played around with the "Move the spill" at the site, and here's something,
well, "mildly interesting." *If you put New York in the text box and center it
there, the area with the real effects would be the portion along the line from
Scranton to Altoona, but little, if any, anywhere else _on the coastal areas_
down here. *But what we are seeing thus far, for example, would be like if there
were oil washing up from Coney Island to maybe JFK, but little to none on the
rest of Long Island (or say, if it were the Chesapeake, it would be from about
Annapolis to Baltimore, but little else). *Of course, there is still more "at
sea" but some portion of that is being collected as well as treated, so it's
impossible to say what the final results will be.

The bottom line is that sites like this one give an _COMPLETELY_ inaccurate
picture of the situation - again, from looking at this, one might believe that
Dauphin Island and Grand Isle are being equally affected, whereas in fact, Grand
Isle is seeing some areas of fairly heavy oiling and Dauphin Island relatively
none. *Moreover, according to map there, there is oil some 10 miles inland (the
southern edge of Foley, AL, is supposedly "oiled."). *And there is other
misleading info contained the

From the site:

"...29 dolphins have been found dead within the spill area..."

The facts from NOAA:

"From April 30 to June 5, 31 dead dolphins have stranded within the designated
spill area and two live dolphins have stranded. One died on the beach and
another that stranded in Florida was euthanized. So far, one of the 33 stranded
dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach,
we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil
prior to its death or after its death. The other 32 dolphins have had no visible
evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has been higher than the historic numbers for
the same time period in previous years. In part, this may be due to increased
detection and reporting and the lingering effects of an earlier observed spike
in strandings for the winter of 2010. A stranding is defined as a dead or
debilitated animal that washes ashore or is found in the water."

For those that don't know, dead dolphins "in the spill area" this time of the
year are found every year and as the report notes, there was a spike prior to
the spill (there were something like 60 found in the "spill area" in March).
Also, since there are a exponentially larger number of people in the area, the
recovery rate of dead wildlife has increased, but some number of natural
mortality is expected - whether the increased number of folks looking and
finding is skewing the numbers is thus far unknown.

Again, I'm not now nor have I ever suggested that this is a good thing, but if
reason and rationality is lost, it will be _made_ all the worse. *I've heard
folks, mainly on the right, but some on the left, suggest that this will be
"Obama's Katrina." *While I don't agree with that, I do think it would be a
great time for him to not "get angry," but rather, use the calm, rational,
reasonable intellect he is alleged to possess and make a wide public call for
rational and above all, extremely accurate reporting, publicly denouncing any
attempts at, um, "skewing." *A good, solid Presidential bitch-slapping to anyone
in his party who attempts to politicize this, along with a call upon the GOP to
do the same, would also be in order. *

TC,
R

Oh bull****. All the asshole/irresponsible Southern rich-clown money
that has been poured into wrecking the Republican moderates has left
the Gulf Coast with a Congressional representation of mental midgets.
ALL of them are blaming Obama and they are exactly the radical
whackjob crowd you've supported.

And now, the beneficent Richard, self assessed master manipulator of
Orwell speak, offers up his denial/media conspiracy theory, wrapped in
an un-needed "pardon" for Obama. Right. More ****en into the wind.

How's that horse pucky about the bio-safe dispersants worken for ya?
Given up on that canard have ya?

Dave

Well, he might need it now, after making an ass of himself on "Today" this
morning...he looked like Fred Armisen trying to do a Damon Wayans' bit...or you
doing someone who knows what they are talking about...

HTH,
R
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, like I said, you would get around to blaming the Black guy as
predicted. Surprise. Not. You've been blaming Obama first chance you
got for everything but rainy days. Didn't even wait for that other
Yale legacy to go hide at his ranch (purchased for him with richclown
scratch so Bush's alcoholic son and 2 year joke Governor wouldn't look
like another West Texas oil loser.) All's left is for Cinderella Bush
to keep Yobird off the sauce, and hope he is sober enough to decline
any hunting invites from the ex-VP. Let the Black guy clean up the
mess to a harpies chorus of boozed-up 5Th Column America haters.

Bahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Dave

MajorOz wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Un-****in'-believable.

Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is with rdean's I
LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME
reporting on the spill.

Could the bitching be agenda-based............nah........not for
gentlemen fly fishers.

Well, rdean's "oil spill, what oil spill ?" report is itself
"agenda based". In other words, rdean is not an honest correspondent.
His take on the worst environmental disaster in US history would
be comical if it were not so pathetic. "I don't see nothin'" doesn't
make millions of gallons of oil disappear.

oz, a long way from the gulf

Yeah, and your bitching is a long way from relevant with this post
inasmuch as this subthread is about rdean's idiotic comments about
an interview which aired on NBC's Today this morning. I'll bet you
could have watched it for yourself, no matter where you happen to be.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jun 8, 2:30*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:17*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Un-****in'-believable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is with rdean's I
LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME
reporting on the spill.

Could the bitching be agenda-based............nah........not for
gentlemen fly fishers.

oz, a long way from the gulf

Fred
Read ALL his "reporting" on the spill since the beginning of the spill
and some of the fact checking on his early assertions and then maybe
you can decide on where the agenda's are. Examples: RD led off
defending BP safety record when even the Republican Baker report after
the BP Texas City refinery blew up with numerous fatalities,
excoriated BP for their culture of unsafe operations. That was
followed by his citation of research on dispersant that conveniently
left out that tests had already shown that the dispersant favored by
BP was 60% as effective and 2-3 times as toxic as alternatives. People
get tired sorting the bull from the real.

There is stuff RD does know allot about. And there is other stuff that
just doesn't check out. Facts are terrible things for folks who seem
to believe everything is fungible and spinnable.

Dave

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:42:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

MajorOz wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Un-****in'-believable.

Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is with rdean's I
LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME
reporting on the spill.

Could the bitching be agenda-based............nah........not for
gentlemen fly fishers.

Well, rdean's "oil spill, what oil spill ?" report is itself
"agenda based". In other words, rdean is not an honest correspondent.
His take on the worst environmental disaster in US history would
be comical if it were not so pathetic. "I don't see nothin'" doesn't
make millions of gallons of oil disappear.

First, it isn't even the largest US oil spill. Second, while Ixtoc wasn't "a US
oil spill," I'm pretty sure "Mother Nature" doesn't have a passport and doesn't
care whether the oil is there from a Mexican company, a quasi-UK one, or a
wholly-US company. And third, there is _considerable_ natural seepage in the
Gulf (but as I said before, it is dispersed over a wider distance and over a
constant time). I have never claimed that this is a "non-event," much less
anything remotely positive. OTOH, I witnessed the aftermath of Katrina (I was
literally at ground zero, and from when it hit) and my only "agenda" is that the
reporting be accurate - if 5, 50 or 5000 dolphins die as a result of this, the
accurate figure should be reported. The fact that 100 dolphins are found dead
over two months which happen to be during this is meaningless as those numbers
are about average this time of year regardless of the spill. If there is
significant oil in an area but little if any in another, an overlay that
portrays all areas equally is misleading, at best (esp. when it shows oil some
10 miles inland). One of the biggest problems with this is no one actually
knows what the effects will be. When Ixtoc occurred, the methodology was
somewhat different (for example, _somewhat_ better dispersants are now being
used versus Ixtoc) as was the "control technology" and resources expended. Then
add to the "mix" comparisons with Valdez - for a host of reasons, it just isn't
directly comparable other than, in layman's terms, they are both "oil spills."

Also, I know a fair number of people at all levels of the petroleum industry,
from exploration to production to refining, and like any industry of its size,
there are good and bad, careful and careless, etc., but without some form of
significant proof, I refuse to say this is anyone's fault because "BP" isn't a
person, it's a company comprised of many, many people and many, many people
played a part in this. From what I've heard, this was an accident, albeit one
that a number of factors that did exist contributed toward and hopefully, some
lessons will be learned.

Will "wildlife" be affected? Of course it will and it has been already. To
what extent remains to be seen. A bunch of people going off half-cocked, using
inaccurate information, and a POTUS looking for an ass to kick in such a
situation will not help one bit. Concentrate resources where they will do the
most good - worst hit, first helped, calmly proceed to implement a planned
control and clean-up effort, assess the situation with scientific accuracy (or
as much as possible) and address that information in "real time," and put the
brakes on _all_ claims beyond those which are legally-owed already owed as a
matter of law until some rational assessment can be made. I've got no problem
with BP being bankrupted by this _IF_ that is what a rational assessment
indicates - there is no question that they have a pretty heavy burden to carry,
but they should not be forced to shoulder a larger one based upon emotion, and
certainly not based upon emotion stirred by inaccuracies. Moreover, as long as
the US demand for oil is present, banning Gulf drilling and production _WILL_
create a more hazardous situation "oil spills" as tanker transport is simply
more risky, spill-wise, so a rational assessment of that is also in order.

oz, a long way from the gulf

TC,
R, often right smack there by it, regularly in it, and overall, pretty familiar
with it...

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:17:38 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Surprisingly, yes. Neither here on earth nor there with you on Upuranus was
there any racism stated or implied. And I'm not sure even how there could be -
care to explain yourself, if you can...?

Un-****in'-believable.

Yes, it is, as are most of your similar "racist" accusations...it's sorta like
Webster goes Huey Newton...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Surprisingly, yes. Neither here on earth nor there with you on Upuranus was
there any racism stated or implied. And I'm not sure even how there could be -
care to explain yourself, if you can...?

You described the President's interview on the Today show as
"Urkel goes gangsta". You're so casually and endemically racist
you can't even recognize it when you utter it on Usenet. Sad.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jun 8, 4:30*pm, MajorOz wrote:


Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is with rdean's I
LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME
reporting on the spill.

In terms you could understand? Not ****in' likely.

Could the bitching be agenda-based............nah........not for
gentlemen fly fishers.

oz, a long way from the gulf

And a long long way from Earth.

Moron.

g.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:17:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
...I mean, Urkel goes gangsta is not what _anyone_ needs right now...

And I suppose on your planet there is not a hint of racism stated or
implied in that idiotic comment. Am I right ?

Surprisingly, yes. Neither here on earth nor there with you on Upuranus was
there any racism stated or implied. And I'm not sure even how there could be -
care to explain yourself, if you can...?

You described the President's interview on the Today show as
"Urkel goes gangsta". You're so casually and endemically racist
you can't even recognize it when you utter it on Usenet. Sad.

Well, Webster, I thought, ever so briefly, about "Lyle Alzado goes 'Swan Lake'"
but it didn't quite sound the same...again, explain how what I did say was
"racist"...if you can...

HTH,
R
....and besides, Alzado is dead and I'm pretty sure that even you Obamaniacs
don't claim he's another Baryshnikov...unless that's "racist"...in which case,
he's no Paula Abdul...unless that's "racist"...in which case, if the dude dances
like he bowls, the only ass he'll be kicking is that of his partner...