Oil/location report...

On Jun 8, 6:30*pm, wrote:
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..

And after all that you doubtless believe you've said something that
might be missing from the average fifth grade current events reports,
right? Well, yeah, the lies, bull****, bloviation and self-
aggrandizement would probably be missing.

oz, a long way from the gulf

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

And full of ****, nevertheless.

Idiot.

g.

On Jun 8, 5:05*pm, DaveS wrote:
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

All demonstrably true.....um.....except for the part about there being
stuff diminutive member knows a lot about. That has never been
demonstrated in these pages.

giles

On Jun 8, 6:46*pm, wrote:
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.

Merely demonstrated.

And I'm not sure even how there could be -

No, of course you're not.

care to explain yourself, if you can...? *

Do you have any idea of how hilarious it is to see you repeatedly (ad
nauseum) challenge people to explain themselves, answer questions,
reveal sources, etc., etc.?

Un-****in'-believable.

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

Imbecile.

g.
who's got a shiny new nickel says the boy actually believes he scores
major points in these "debates."

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Giles wrote:

And now, Screech goes Nancy Pelosi...with cramps and a Botox OD...

HTH,
Dickie

On Jun 8, 4:42*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

...the worst environmental disaster in US history...

Heh, heh, heh.....nothing like a bit of regurgitated media hype to
demonstrate acumen, huh?

Ken Fortenberry

BOO!

g.

On 6/8/10 6:53 PM, wrote:
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...

What you wrote was overtly racist. That's obvious to everyone but you.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Jun 8, 8:23*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Giles wrote:

And now, Screech goes Nancy Pelosi...with cramps and a Botox OD...

HTH,
Dickie

Moron.

g.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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...

Like I said, sad.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:28:28 -0600, rw wrote:

On 6/8/10 6:53 PM, wrote:
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...

What you wrote was overtly racist. That's obvious to everyone but you.

Wow. "Everyone," huh? Name them all...

And even a moderately careful read would indicate it is your, and Ken's,
self-important pronouncements about racism that are, in fact, "racist"...

I'd have been curious to see how "racist" those making assumptions would have
thought the comparison had it compared him to someone those making assumptions
held in a favorable light. IOW, I'd have been curious to see how "racist" you
and/or Ken, etc., would have considered a comparison to, oh, say, Paul Krugman
(or in your case, oh, say, Tyra Banks)...

HTH,
R

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 07:02:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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...

Like I said, sad.

Yeah, you SAID it, but apparently, you cannot EXPLAIN it...

HTH,
R