PDA

View Full Version : a magnaminous offer



hondo
11-05-2007, 02:02 PM
I have been asked by LWW to post this.
I quote:" Hondo,should you desire I am offering you a peace proposal: Relay to Gayle AND HER MINDLESS MINIONS that if they agree to"
What follows is a list of 8 demands. I now paraphrase:
1.Quit picking on me. It makes me cry.
2. Stop exposing my homo-erotic fantasies.
3.Be sure to let readers know I like beastiality too.
4.Watch your language around my 11 year old girl friend.
5.Give me a link for the 12 step Kool Aid program.
6.Be civil to ALL Neo-con Neo-fascists.
7.Follow Dawg's lead & admit you are clueless.
8. Pass the hateaid.
Back to direct quote. " I will become a kinder & gentler person in the way I post here. So long as they continue to fight,even though they are woefully unarmed, they will continue to suffer the ravages of their own hate-filled propaganda."
These seem like very fair demands to me and I vote that we give in.
Happy, LWW?

Drop1
11-05-2007, 02:23 PM
Sorry,kinder and gentler,does not get it. He,or she, lacks what is required,and that is honesty,and intellectual capacity. In short,LWW is a man,or woman,bringing nothing to the forum. I say LWW should continue posting,saying what ever,he,or she chooses,even though no original issue,is presented.

LWW
11-05-2007, 02:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I have been asked by LWW to post this.
I quote:" Hondo,should you desire I am offering you a peace proposal: Relay to Gayle AND HER MINDLESS MINIONS that if they agree to"
What follows is a list of 8 demands. I now paraphrase:
1.Quit picking on me. It makes me cry.
2. Stop exposing my homo-erotic fantasies.
3.Be sure to let readers know I like beastiality too.
4.Watch your language around my 11 year old girl friend.
5.Give me a link for the 12 step Kool Aid program.
6.Be civil to ALL Neo-con Neo-fascists.
7.Follow Dawg's lead &amp; admit you are clueless.
8. Pass the hateaid.
Back to direct quote. " I will become a kinder &amp; gentler person in the way I post here. So long as they continue to fight,even though they are woefully unarmed, they will continue to suffer the ravages of their own hate-filled propaganda."
These seem like very fair demands to me and I vote that we give in.
Happy, LWW? <hr /></blockquote>
So Hondo has now graduated to world class deciever.

LWW

wolfdancer
11-05-2007, 02:48 PM
I was going to add my own .02 in there, but you have summed it up much better then I could.
Political and religious arguments, can never be "won" on the basis of who is smarter. that shouldn't even figure into the equation. And arguing for the sake of provoking others soon gets tiresome.

wolfdancer
11-05-2007, 03:11 PM
Aw, anyone familiar with your "work" knew that it was a parody, when they got down to #7 and you were supposedly giving Dawg credit for something...when all your true fans know, you want all the credit

hondo
11-05-2007, 03:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
So Hondo has now graduated to world class deciever.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

What's that supposed to mean? Honestly, you are never satisfied! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

hondo
11-05-2007, 03:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Aw, anyone familiar with your "work" knew that it was a parody, when they got down to #7 and you were supposedly giving Dawg credit for something...when all your true fans know, you want all the credit <hr /></blockquote>

He has no sense of humor, Wolfie, unlike vous et moi
who are TWO WILD AND CRAZY GUYS. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
11-05-2007, 07:38 PM
All you are doing is instigating more of the same crap that has been going on here for the past month or so. What is your problem?

I have not seen a single post by anyone thanking you for inviting these goons over here and all you can do is continue prodding them. Think man.

eg8r

hondo
11-05-2007, 10:14 PM
I didn't invite them over.
They invited themselves over.
LWW says I invited him over.
Not really what I said.
And you're right. Certainly nobody has
thanked me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

hondo
11-05-2007, 10:32 PM
I looked back at my posts on AZ.
There was a thread titled"I give up.
I said I was tired of being outnumbered and insulted.
I said on CCB it was the opposite with the lefties
outnumbering the right.
LWW took that as an invitation to come on here &amp; "win".
Sorry. Sometimes change is inevitible whether we like it or not.
Am I feeding the fire? I guess I am. Retired, bored, &amp;
having a little fun.

Drop1
11-05-2007, 11:05 PM
Don't worry about it,and start having some fun,or express,what is important to you. It is only natural the forum should be involved in politics. I think there are many facets to this forum,and exclusion should not be one of them.

Chopstick
11-06-2007, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>I have not seen a single post by anyone thanking you for inviting these goons over<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I didn't invite them over.
They invited themselves over.
LWW says I invited him over.
Not really what I said.
And you're right. Certainly nobody has
thanked me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you for sharing your goons with us. I like 'em. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Dub and Dawg, if these folks get on your nerves, they are easy enough to handle. Allow me to demonstrate.

<font color="blue">SILENCE! I kill you.</font color>

See, quiet as church. Works every time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
11-06-2007, 08:00 AM
Did you happen to see the Achmed, the terrorist video....that's his line...

Chopstick
11-06-2007, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Did you happen to see the Achmed, the terrorist video....that's his line... <hr /></blockquote>

Yep. LMAO. He's my new hero. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
11-06-2007, 08:19 AM
Let me be the first then...Thanks, it's a good reminder that there are people out there that think different from others, especially when you're behind the wheel of the family auto.
Did you know it is illegal to possess a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany and that it will land you in jail? Well, apparently the only one that knew that over on AZB was LWW...even folks that grew up there, or married a German woman were not aware of that, and wondered why the book was
allowed to be displayed in windows, for sale. (I guess you can own it as long as you put it up for sale, without reading it)
Well he's now switched his claim...I think it's now Uganda where it is illegal...... or maybe Austria...until someone from there tells him it's BS....

S0Noma
11-06-2007, 01:12 PM
Well, that explains his profile then. I was wondering.

http://i24.tinypic.com/2v3g3fl.jpg

wolfdancer
11-06-2007, 01:16 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
11-06-2007, 01:24 PM
Which only goes to show that:

A-I can admit when I'm wrong, even though it happens so seldom.

B-You can't even though you have so much experience.

As you noticed when someone questioned it I rechecked my memory and corrected the statement.

That is something I would suggest you try now and then.

LWW

LWW
11-06-2007, 01:26 PM
SONoma, I don't know if I ever shared this with you or not ... but I gauge my success on how much the truth rattles the likes of you and wolfie.

Apparently it rattles you quite a bet.

Now, did you ever grow a set to back up your balderdash, or are you going to run back under the couch with wolfie and hondo?

LWW

S0Noma
11-06-2007, 01:59 PM
Listen up jerkwad - I am very comfortable with my 'set' and you have not earned nearly the degree of respect that you'd need for me to listen to anything you might have to say about it. You've not been able to successfully challenge me in this forum one on one - (think tree hugger joke) - speaking of which - I did some research after that thread got going and ya know what? That damned joke kept popping up on conservative websites. Know why? Because it's about a tree hugger (aka environmentalist) getting phucked in the ass by a fag. Pretty phunny, that treehugger finally getting what he deserved, huh?

But you tried to use it first as an example of my anti-gay bashing and then later after a bit more discussion (remember: rape joke) it was all about my 'homoerotic' fantasies (gay bash much LWW?) Sonoma - the homoerotic gay basher (look up oxymoron when you have the time). As if. Then you picked up the 'he's a fag - their all fags - hilarity and ran with it until I posted the 'Was Jesus Gay' vid link - at which time your gay bashing self accused me of being a troll! How ridiculous do you want to get here, assbite?

Must we also count your running back to your old forum with a twisted explanation of how you got 'sucker punched' by me and that I 'backed down' from you, before returning here to proclaim your fat headed self the victor? Funny, how nobody but your buttbuddy dogfart agreed with your analysis? Strange but true.

No - LWW - I don't need an aptitude test to determine where you and I stand in relationship to one another. You've already proven your lack of same over and over again. I truly don't give two $hits how big you think your stupid balls are - your inflated opinion of your intellect is undermined by your inability to apply critical thinking or logic to your posts.

As to what you say disturbing me? For sure it does. Like when you made the absurd claim that environmentalists fighting to keep Bush from allowing commercial logging interests in to 'thin' the National forests was the principal reason for the LA BRUSH fires? Yeah, stuff like that - is disturbing. It's ridiculous that a grown man could imagine that blaming environmentalists (tree huggers: see 'rape joke') will fly on a forum where people actually think things through in lieu of swallowing right wing anti-environmental propaganda hook line and sinker.

LWW
11-06-2007, 06:27 PM
It's a shame you can't wrap your mind around the idea that a string of schoolyard profanities does not mask the intellectual, emotional, and self image deficiencies that you suffer from.

HERE (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=54462) is where Clinton was onboard with thinning the California forests to prevent wildfires in 1997.

HERE (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/legislation/tahoe.htm) is where Senator Feinstein is onboard.

HERE (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003764016_firethin27.html) is a review explaining that pre wildfire eruption fully 25% of the forest was already dead ... and that due to thinning being reduced the forest had 5 times the trees that nature normally provided.

HERE (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/bush.radio/index.html) is a CNN piece explaining why it was good, until Bush and now it's bad.

HERE (http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/roadless/) is where the Sierra club sued to stop the program and the N California Circuit Court sided with them.

HERE (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/2998) is where the greenies blame it all on GW.

And we all know who is behind GW. George Bush. (http://www.alternet.org/environment/53510/)

Class dismissed.

LWW

bamadog
11-06-2007, 06:40 PM
OUCH!
Somewhere ouside San Francisco, under a bridge, a troll is licking his wounds and planning his troll-like response.

LWW
11-07-2007, 07:07 AM
Give him a chance Dawg.

Perhaps he will see the error of his ways, hope springs eternal.

My sworn duty when I came here was to slay liberal myths.

Another has just shed it's lifeblood on the broadsword of truth, let's all pay our final respects to the dearly departed lie that the higher ups in the radical left has used to deceive honest Americans who trusted the MSM to tell them the truth.



OK, now give me a hand so I can toss it's rotting corpse on the funeral pyre of nonsense that has been previously slain.

LWW

S0Noma
11-07-2007, 11:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Give him a chance Dawg.

Perhaps he will see the error of his ways, hope springs eternal.

My sworn duty when I came here was to slay liberal myths.

Another has just shed it's lifeblood on the broadsword of truth, let's all pay our final respects to the dearly departed lie that the higher ups in the radical left has used to deceive honest Americans who trusted the MSM to tell them the truth.



OK, now give me a hand so I can toss it's rotting corpse on the funeral pyre of nonsense that has been previously slain.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

You two are really quite hilarious. First deputydawg declares you the unanimous victor in a yet to be concluded debate (by the way Bambi - it's normal to wait for both sides to be heard before announcing a winner. Just so's you know.) Then you follow with a phony admonishment to him and then expose the depth of your personal delusion by declaring that you've won. Slaying myths and tossing rotting corpses on funeral pyres? In your dreams.

Well hang onto your broadsword pal - you're going to need it.

http://i23.tinypic.com/ort0ch.jpg

LWW
11-07-2007, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>(by the way Bambi - it's normal to wait for both sides to be heard before announcing a winner. Just so's you know.)<hr /></blockquote>
I'm not sure who Bambi is, but perhaps bestiality is another of your issues. Not sure on that one.

Second, your side was heard.

I made a statement.

You contested it with a moonbat rant.

I exposed it as a moonbat rant.

You replied with yet another moonbat rant.

Once again, you need to learn that profanity and screaming louder will never ever trump facts and reality.

Now, since you have already made a claim that you possess a superior intellect yet lack the stones to back it up ... followed by a ludicrous assertion that the ecoleft wasn't responsible for improper forest husbandry ... please, don't shame your parents anymore and come back for a further intellectual beatdown.

SONoma, I have dealt with moonbats of far superior skills to you and beaten down every one of them? Why? Because I base my opinions on reality and I research things myself without having another moonbat tell me what I think.

Now, your next step in recovery is to be a man and take this as a learning experience rather than an embarrassment. I hate to whoop you this bad in a public forum, but you seem to need it before you pay attention.

LWW

bamadog
11-07-2007, 12:20 PM
Sorry Sonoma
I said you were preparing your "troll-like response", and you didn't disappoint.

LWW
11-07-2007, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>http://i23.tinypic.com/ort0ch.jpg<hr /></blockquote>
BTW, where did you find a copy of my 1st grade picture?

That was taken in 1962 when a moonbat teacher tried to explain that some commie idjits were going to beat us to the Moon. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

LWW

S0Noma
11-07-2007, 03:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>

HERE (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=54462) is where Clinton was onboard with thinning the California forests to prevent wildfires in 1997.

<font color="blue">Not exactly, according to the article he was on board with thinning the forests around Lake Tahoe. That's why the article is titled: Executive Order 13057—Federal Actions in the Lake Tahoe Region and not Executive Order 13057—Federal Actions in the State of California . I'm surprised you didn't notice this small detail. Actually, I'm not surprised at all as you seem to prefer ignoring any pertinent details that stand between you and your efforts to 'slay liberal myths'. So be it.

BTW: The State of California is huge - I mean really, really big. We have forests all over the place and deserts and arid regions and wetlands and the whole nine yards. We do not live in a 'one size fits all' State.

Note that the Clinton article is dated July 26th, 1997 &amp; the fires that hit Tahoe happened nearly ten years later. What happened in the interim? Well, good question - did the evil environmentalists halt all efforts on the part of the Feds to thin the forests around Lake Tahoe? Not according to this link you cited http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003764016_firethin27.html

"The problems have been threefold, experts say.

At first, residents who owned multimillion-dollar homes were wary of controlled burns near their property, fearing they might leap out of control. Second, residents and state air-pollution officials have raised concerns about large amounts of unhealthy smoke.

Finally, because Tahoe is a complex jigsaw of public, private and state-owned lands, getting permits and consensus has taken time. And it's not cheap. Clearing the land can cost $1,200 to $2,500 an acre."

<font color="red">"Although environmentalists have appealed some thinning efforts in the Sierra Nevada, Forest Service records show that since 1997, none of the thinning projects around Lake Tahoe have been appealed."</font color>

<font color="blue">"They haven't been promoting the kind of aggressive logging projects under the guise of thinning that we have seen in other national forests in the Sierra," said Chad Hanson, executive director of the John Muir Project, an environmental group in Grass Valley.

Environmentalists have fought efforts by the Forest Service to pay for thinning by cutting some larger trees — which are more fire-resistant but can be sold to lumber mills to offset the costs. Hanson said convincing homeowners to clear brush 100 feet around homes is more important."

So, it hasn't been evil environmentalists filing frivolous lawsuits that has obstructed thinning efforts around Lake Tahoe, has it? I mean '...since 1997 (the year Clinton acted to implement change in the region), none of the thinning projects around Lake Tahoe have been appealed. is pretty clear isn't it? Even to a dunderhead like yourself? Let me say it as simply as I can so that even you can understand: Any efforts to thin the forested areas around Lake Tahoe that got thwarted in the past ten years were NOT thwarted by mean old environmentalists filing lawsuits. Period. End of story.

Furthermore, what is it that seems to be at the heart of some of the evil environmentalist's concerns about thinning? Apparently it has something to do with the marketability of the trees that lumber interests would find commercially viable – you know the ones that are coincidentally also the most fire resistant? Take away commercial viability of thinning the trees and you are in danger of losing the interest of logging companies to 'help out' – funny how that works.

Be that as it may the argument that initiated this debate was based on (correct me if I'm wrong) your contention that the recent major fires in Southern California could have been PREVENTED if the environmentalists had been told to put a sock in it and commercial logging interests or forestry officials had been allowed to come in and 'thin' the forests. Well, guess what? The preponderance of Southern California isn't covered in heavy timber - it's covered in brush - most of the homes that have been lost were lost due to the extremely dry conditions in that region, upwards of 85MPH Santa Ana winds and the steep brush covered terrain. Access to the fires by firefighters has been limited by rugged terrain and people blocking the highways.

See: driest year in the LA area in over one hundred years:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902093.html

In spite of your warped desire to make the So Cal fires an example to prove your point that Bush was right about allowing the forests to be thinned by commercial logging interests it has practically NOTHING TO DO with this tragedy. The mere fact that you and yours want to make political capital out of this tragedy says a lot about your callous attitude towards those that were harmed by the fires.

Looking back at the first thread where the issue of the Southern California fires was discussed

See:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=261862&amp;Forum=np r&amp;Words=Bill%20Maher&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;Searchp age=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=allposts&amp;Main=261862&amp;Search=tru e#Post261862

You responded that 'some people' (liberal myth slayers?) saw it for 'what it was' and 'what it was' was 'the inevitable result of insane neoleftists preventing the forest service from properly husbanding forests to keep nature from doing what it is doing now.'

http://i23.tinypic.com/2z4db4h.jpg

In a nutshell (pun intended) you were claiming to believe that environmentalists objecting to the 'thinning of forests' led to an inevitable conflagration that burned some eight hundred square miles of Southern California during the month of October - continuing until now (two fires are still burning). Is that a fair encapsulation of your position? I hope so, because it certainly sounded like that to me.

When I pointed out that a major portion of the areas that had burned were in fact covered in chaparral (brush) and weren't heavily forested at all, once again , you blew right past it and jumped back on your 'Bush was right! We should thin the forest and put a stop to these fires! - damn the environmentalists - full speed ahead!' hobby horse.

For what it's worth - from an Oregon paper

http://www.bakercityherald.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=5528

"The setting for the California disaster — hundreds of homes built on steep terrain covered with extremely combustible chaparral — doesn't exist in Eastern Oregon. Not yet, anyway. A blaze this summer near Burns scorched 140,000 acres but didn't destroy a single home.

Fire seasons hereabouts don't mimic conditions in Southern California, either. The chaparral can get crispy by June, and the fire danger often reaches its peak during October, when the hot, dry Santa Ana winds arrive.”

From the LA Times written on Oct. 22:

"Thousands of Southern California homes could be at risk in coming days as powerful Santa Ana winds continue to stoke wildfires, fire officials said. Blazes on Sunday scorched thousands of acres from the Mexican border to Santa Barbara County, destroyed at least 39 homes and other buildings and killed at least one person.

Some of the worst devastation has been in and around Malibu and in San Diego, where at least one person died and 14 were injured. At least 25 buildings there were destroyed and 3,800 remained threatened by a rapidly moving blaze driven by winds gusting to 80 mph. At least four people were reported injured, one severely."</font color>

<font color="black">HERE (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003764016_firethin27.html) is a review explaining that pre wildfire eruption fully 25% of the forest was already dead ... and that due to thinning being reduced the forest had 5 times the trees that nature normally provided.</font color>

<font color="red"> See above – once again, you are referring to the Lake Tahoe fire here and NOT the Southern California conflagration which initiated this thread in the first place.

To help jog your memory -

See: This Halloween -
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=261862&amp;page=2&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1
</font color>


HERE (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/bush.radio/index.html) is a CNN piece explaining why it was good, until Bush and now it's bad.

<font color="red"> Read it – don’t see one single thing in that article that knocks Bush. Other than the fact that the article was written over five years ago and may no longer pertain, what am I missing?</font color>

<font color="black">HERE (http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/roadless/) is where the Sierra club sued to stop the program and the N California Circuit Court sided with them.</font color>

<font color="red">The N California Circuit Court is an official Federal Court and like it or not Mr. Liberal Myth Slayer, their word is law.

"Judge Elizabeth Laporte essentially ruled that the Bush Administration violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act by when it repealed the Roadless Rule and put into place their own rule without any substantial analysis or need. This court ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who value America's great natural areas and reverses the Bush administration's efforts to open these last great natural areas to development interests." </font color>

<font color="black">HERE (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/2998) is where the greenies blame it all on GW.</font color>

<font color="blue">Blame all what? Oh drought - got it. I'm still not one hundred percent certain if global warming is behind the climate change they're seeing in some areas. At the same time I think it's pretty silly not to recognize that if an area has been drought stricken it is going to be more susceptible to fire. Thinned trees or not. Southern California, for example, has been quite arid for as far back as I can remember (hence the abundance of dessert chaparral that grows there in lieu of more water hungry conifers. Right now they’re suffering through some of the driest weather in over one hundred years. How could you pretend to think that super dry weather, extremely steep brush covered slopes, high winds and fire can be controlled by ‘thinning’? </font color>


<font color="black">And we all know who is behind GW. George Bush. (http://www.alternet.org/environment/53510/) </font color>

<font color="blue">Shoot, I read that article twice and I didn't see one word in there about GW Bush being responsible for the Southern California wildfires that raged there during the month of Oct. 2007. Could it be because the article was written in June, 2007? &amp; had nothing to do with fire except to highlight the prospect that excess CO2 emissions have led to climate change and that the Bush administration isn't at all certain if those changes are necessarily bad? If it turns out to be true that climate change is happening due to excess CO2 emissions and that the droughts currently hitting portions of the western US could be reduced or eliminated by working on reduction of CO2 emissions? What is so wrong with that?

Finally, what does this have to do with thinning brush in Southern California? Or the insistence of people to build their homes on steep, brush covered and fire prone hillsides? Or blaming the SoCal fires on the lack of forest thinning and logging roads and commercial development that would have followed the implementation of Bush's so-called 'plan'? I mean, are you trying to say that the SoCal fires could have been prevented by cutting logging roads? Or commercial loggers thinning out the brush? Or - what?


Last but not least - here's a link to a blog written by a man whose home was threatened in the recent fires:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/132

<font color="blue">Blame the enviros -- global warming had nothing to do with it. The right-wing wasted no time placing the blame for the fires on their favorite target: the environmentalists. Quoth Rush Limbaugh: "The Sierra Club will not let you get in there -- none of the environmentalists will -- and get rid of the dead junk that is at the bottom of these forests that is just like kindling wood.... In order to thrive, we have to alter our environment, and, if altering the environment means clearing out some dead brush to make fire less of a gigantic possibility than it already is, then we have a responsibility to do that." And Glenn Beck at CNN: "the environmentalists, the same ones that going to tell me it's my fault because I have an SUV, these same damn environmentalists are the ones that have stopped people in California from clearing brush on their own property."
It's a flat-out damnable lie! Residents of our mountain communities are required to clear brush on their property, and face fines if they refuse. Environmentalist have no problem whatever with these regulations. That's the simple truth of it, as Limbaugh, Beck, et al, could have found out in a moment simply by picking up their phones. But as we know so well by now, the right-wing screech-merchants never let the facts get in the way of a smear. </font color>



<font color="black">Class dismissed. </font color>

<font color="blue"> Not hardly. When the day ever comes for you to ‘school me’ I’ll be the first to let you know. In the meantime, try and get your facts straight. Stop using out of date and irrelevant links to try and back up your conservative hyperbole and put a little more elbow grease into your research. It might also help if you were to stop spending so much time listening to Rush et al and try doing a little independent thinking on your own.

This was way too easy but… it’s been fun.

Sonoma</font color>




<hr /></blockquote>

LWW
11-07-2007, 04:08 PM
Yer funnee!

LWW

wolfdancer
11-07-2007, 04:12 PM
I wasn't going to reply anymore to the (L)udicrous, (W)hacky, and (W)eird posts of the boy wonder, but I feel that you have spoiled another "Victory" celebration post over on AZB....and also feel, in the interest of fairness, you should offer him, the "3 out" in any debate.
There's a new virus out on the internet...the LameassLWW virus. It won't wipe out your hard drive, might make you think you forgot to wipe your butt.
It's relatively harmless and benign, but does give one temporary delusions of grandeur, even worse, adequacy ... it's being circulated in an email appealing to animal lovers...asking for donations for some dog born without a functioning brain...

LWW
11-07-2007, 04:26 PM
And the Lake Tahoe area burned this summer. In fact it was the beginnings of the wildfire story. And, the US Forestry Dept is uniform on it's forest husbandry processes.

Sadly, your ignorance is one of truly monumental proportions.

You, however , I have hope for. Wolfire's ignorance is by choice.

LWW

S0Noma
11-07-2007, 04:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> And the Lake Tahoe area burned this summer. In fact it was the beginnings of the wildfire story. And, the US Forestry Dept is uniform on it's forest husbandry processes.

Sadly, your ignorance is one of truly monumental proportions.

You, however , I have hope for. Wolfire's ignorance is by choice.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Which says absolutely NOTHING about the role of the US Forestry Dept's husbandry practices in preventing or not preventing the Southern California BRUSH fires - let me see you develop some workable arguments on those eight hundred square miles of territory that just burned up down there.

No enviro lawsuits filed to prevent the thinning of trees in Lake Tahoe? How can you argue that environmentalists were at fault there?

No major forests to thin covering Southern California where the fires just burned. But you insist the two things are connected. Are you saying environmental lawsuits prevented the chaparral from being thinned? If so - prove it.

Maybe you're just nuts? Cuz if that's the case, I'll stop wasting my time talking to you. I really do have better things to do than try to talk rationally to a mental case.

LWW you don't have an argument - you have a cause.

Put up or shut up.

LWW
11-07-2007, 05:38 PM
Do you even pay attention?


HERE (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12401) is a review from the GAO of the problems that the ecowhackos cause, from which I quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The study, released by the General Accounting Office (GAO) on May 15, found most federal forest-thinning proposals subject to third-party comment were appealed by environmental activists.


59 Percent Appealed

The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal. Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.

Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.

Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.

“The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).

“The American people will no longer tolerate management by wildfire,” Domenici added.

“This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year’s horrific fire season alone,” said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California).

“These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property,” Pombo said. <hr /></blockquote>

LWW

S0Noma
11-07-2007, 05:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Do you even pay attention?


LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Actually, I do. But apparently - you don't. I read this article when LAMeass first posted it. It doesn't address either of the questions I've asked you above and hence, you've not addressed them either.

You cannot use a scattergun here Lww and claim that you've bagged all the quail in the covey. I'm not buying it.

Answer the fricking questions that I've asked you to answer or STFU.

LWW
11-08-2007, 04:46 AM
Stop trying to weasel off the hook junior.

You contended that the radical ecos had nothing to do with stopping the wildfires. I have proven to all but the most ignorant of partisans that this is in fact what happened.

As to questions, the neoleft here refuses to answer anything so why should I waste any further time answering the incoherent rambling rants of a jr HS student who has their teacher tell them what they think.

You are as yet to answer a cogent question and I tire of your sopomoric inanity.

Now, if you ever actually have something to add to the adult conversations sonny then bring us a note. Until then, go back to the kiddy table and learn.

LWW

eg8r
11-08-2007, 08:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You contended that the radical ecos had nothing to do with stopping the wildfires. I have proven to all but the most ignorant of partisans that this is in fact what happened. <hr /></blockquote> I guess I am confused...You keep pointing to North California and SONoma is talking about South California. You keep talking about thinning forests (I take this as removing trees, what else is included), SONoma is saying the fires in Southern California has to do with brush.

Are the two of you talking apples and oranges? If forests were thinned out in Lake Tahoe, what does that have to do with the brush fires in San Diego?

eg8r

LWW
11-08-2007, 09:30 AM
I have been talking about proper forest husbandry.

Nature cleans up overgrown brush./forest/whatever with fire.

It's brutal, but it fixes things.

Proper forest husbandry requires thinning of anything overgrown and prevents fire from being the fixall.

You can only choose one.

The ecowhackos went to court to insist on allowing nature to burn ... and BTW Lake Tahoe was the first of the big fires.

We have a similar issue here in Ohio with "wildflowers".

They used to be cut on highway roadways by roadcrews until the nutjobs took them to court.

Now several medians and offramp areas burn every fall because the area cannot be properly nmaintained by gubmint fiat.

Who do they blame here in Ohio? Do I have to tell you?

LWW

S0Noma
11-08-2007, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Stop trying to weasel off the hook junior.

You contended that the radical ecos had nothing to do with stopping the wildfires. I have proven to all but the most ignorant of partisans that this is in fact what happened.

As to questions, the neoleft here refuses to answer anything so why should I waste any further time answering the incoherent rambling rants of a jr HS student who has their teacher tell them what they think.

You are as yet to answer a cogent question and I tire of your sopomoric inanity.

Now, if you ever actually have something to add to the adult conversations sonny then bring us a note. Until then, go back to the kiddy table and learn.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Let's review - you started this whole thread with the absurd observation that neo-lefties were responsible for the recent fires in Southern California.

http://i23.tinypic.com/2z4db4h.jpg

In a nutshell - you proffer that were the forests all thinned as per King George's wish - that we would have few if any major fires. The gist of your argument hangs on the premise that evil environmentalists have stymied every effort on the part of noble George Bush and the forestry service to 'thin' the forests.

You further suggest, (or I should say echo the mantra of the extreme right) that the failure to let Bush have his way has led directly to the major fires we've seen in California this summer. The two largest of which were a fire in the Lake Tahoe region last June and a devastating fire that burned eight hundred square miles of Southern California in October.

According to you the evil neo-leftist, environmentalists have done this by successfully filing many baseless lawsuits that, although baseless, have nonetheless stymied all efforts on the part of George Bush and the forestry service to 'thin' the forests.

But what happens to your baseless rhetoric when we get down to brass tacks? Well, it turns into vapor and goes up in smoke.

How does this happen?

First, You cite President Clinton's 1997 order to thin the forests around Lake Tahoe (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=54462)

Then you cite a link to an article that basically says that thinning efforts in the Lake Tahoe area have not gone as smoothly as expected in the past years. The article gives three major reasons for why this has been the case NONE of which have anything to do with your alleged base cause (frivolous environmentalist lawsuits).
"Although environmentalists have appealed some thinning efforts in the Sierra Nevada, Forest Service records show that since 1997, none of the thinning projects around Lake Tahoe have been appealed." (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003764016_firethin27.html)

So, regardless of how you feel about thinning programs, the bottom line here is that the Lake Tahoe forest fires had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH FRIVOLOUS ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS. It's right there is the article you cited. No lawsuits in ten years - none - zip - zero - nada.

Then you tried to make your point about baseless environmentalist lawsuits by citing (Hold on to your hats folks!) A SUCCESSFUL environmentalist lawsuit! (http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/roadless/)

How is that supposed to work, exactly? How can a successful environmentalist lawsuit be frivolous? Come to think of it? It can't be, frivolous lawsuits, by their nature, don't succeed. They may work as a delaying tactic, but they don't win in court. You cited a win - and a big one. Are you really that dense?

Sorry pal, but you can't have it both ways. Either the 'insane neo-leftists prevented the forest service from properly husbanding forests around Lake Tahoe to keep nature from doing what it is doing now.' or they didn't. Either they successfully prevented the husbanding efforts in Southern California, or they didn't. You, when put on the spot, have totally failed to prove that they did. Yet, you insist loud and long that both these tragedies should be laid at the doorstep of insane neo-leftist environmentalists.

Why? So that you can support the specious argument that the great protector of our environment, George Bush, has been correct in his efforts to let loggers in to 'thin' (major euphemism here) our unkempt forests and save us all from a fiery doom and that it's only because of insane neo-leftists that he hasn't succeeded.

In conclusion, we take your circular reasoning all the way back to the beginning with your laughable comments that insane neo-leftists were responsible for preventing the Southern California wildfires and therefore they should be held to blame.

Why? Well because of frivolous lawsuits hindering the forest service from husbanding the forest there just like they did in Lake Tahoe.

Except, they didn't hinder the forest service in Lake Tahoe and you've shown absolutely no proof that they hindered the 'thinning' of dessert brush (not massive forests) in Southern California. Tinder dry brush that went up in flames behind the driest fire season in one hundred years and 85mph winds.

So, the bottom line here, is that you can not expect to substitute bull$hit for facts and expect it to fly. A major fire in Lake Tahoe and another one in Southern California DOES NOT PROVE your point. The truth is, that like much of the rest of the hot air you spew in this forum you can't back up what you say. When pressed? You resort to even more bluster with a few ad homs thrown in for good measure.

<font color="blue">Well, from where I sit, it clearly looks like evil environmentalists and their silly lawsuits didn't have anything at all to do with either of the major fires here in California - and until you can produce evidence to the contrary - and given the evidence at hand?

I must assume that you are willing to go to any lengths, including lying, in an effort to make your baseless point.

That doesn't speak well for your character, LWW or your analytical skills, or your intellect for that matter. It's not hard to conclude that in your case the old saying that 'Ignorance is bliss' should be your new tag-line in this forum.

No, no, wait --- I've got it! Neo-Ignorance!! Yeah, that's the ticket. </font color>

<font color="red">Class (as you are so fond of saying) dismissed.</font color>

LWW
11-08-2007, 11:28 AM
HERE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/05/EDA4T5HP0.DTL&amp;hw=misguided&amp;sn=005&amp;sc=285) is a link from the rabid right wing San Francisco Chronicle, from which I quote:
[ QUOTE ]
Since Oct. 20, the ongoing Southern California fires have scorched nearly 500,000 acres - roughly three-fourths the size of Rhode Island, prompted the largest evacuation since the Civil War, caused 12 deaths and injured hundreds, all at a cost yet to be determined, but some think will top $2 billion. And there are other consequences as well, including endangered wildlife dead, watersheds dramatically damaged by ash and erosion, and native plants wiped out.

But the underlying causes of these monster fires aren't as well understood. Why do they keep happening at such intensity? One reason is that for years, groups that literally make a living by obstructing government efforts to manage forests have filed myriad lawsuits intended to delay, stall or stop anything resembling science. They seek to prevent the federal government from implementing balanced efforts to manage the land, including efforts to thin forests and brushland to help prevent catastrophic wildfire.

Just last year in Southern California, an environmental advocacy organization filed a lawsuit against reasonable forest management impacting more than 3.5 million acres in four National Forests. Interestingly, more than 100,000 of these same acres have now burned in the past few days in three of these forests - Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland. But the lawsuit proceeds.<hr /></blockquote>
Now, you are walking talking and typing proof that it is better to be thought an idjit than to speak and remove all doubt.

Please, don't disgrace your family anymore with your foolish denial of reality.

Take your beatdown like a man and learn from it.

Stay down troll, stay down ... I gotta lotta mo fo ya if'n ya don't!

LWW

eg8r
11-08-2007, 06:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Nature cleans up overgrown brush./forest/whatever with fire.
<hr /></blockquote> Nature or arson?

eg8r

LWW
11-08-2007, 07:15 PM
Arson will also, of course.

Either way, if the land is properly maintained the fires as we see them do not happen.

The same thing happened about 10 years ago at Yellowstone.

LWW

S0Noma
11-08-2007, 10:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> [I gotta lotta mo fo ya if'n ya don't!

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Uh huh, well let's hope it stands up to scrutiny better than all your prior posts. Frankly I'm not remotely impressed so far.

Catch you on the rebound tomorrow morning. Not through with you and your BS yet. This last post of yours deserves to be addressed. See you tomorrow.

LWW
11-09-2007, 04:33 AM
Twelve hours scanning moonbat sites for a reply that you can plagiarize and claim as your own is about what I expected.

LWW

S0Noma
11-09-2007, 07:59 AM
Lol - yeah, you're a real terror alright. Legend in your own mind and fearless foe. Darn, what shall I do? How can I possibly defend myself against your ridiculous pomposity?
Oh, yeah, I know - facts - you really hate those.

http://i8.tinypic.com/6xh4ksh.jpg

S0Noma
11-09-2007, 11:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> HERE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/05/EDA4T5HP0.DTL&amp;hw=misguided&amp;sn=005&amp;sc=285) is a link from the rabid right wing San Francisco Chronicle, from which I quote:
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Since Oct. 20, the ongoing Southern California fires have scorched nearly 500,000 acres - roughly three-fourths the size of Rhode Island, prompted the largest evacuation since the Civil War, caused 12 deaths and injured hundreds, all at a cost yet to be determined, but some think will top $2 billion. And there are other consequences as well, including endangered wildlife dead, watersheds dramatically damaged by ash and erosion, and native plants wiped out.

But the underlying causes of these monster fires aren't as well understood. Why do they keep happening at such intensity? One reason is that for years, groups that literally make a living by obstructing government efforts to manage forests have filed myriad lawsuits intended to delay, stall or stop anything resembling science. They seek to prevent the federal government from implementing balanced efforts to manage the land, including efforts to thin forests and brushland to help prevent catastrophic wildfire.

Just last year in Southern California, an environmental advocacy organization filed a lawsuit against reasonable forest management impacting more than 3.5 million acres in four National Forests. Interestingly, more than 100,000 of these same acres have now burned in the past few days in three of these forests - Angeles, San Bernardino and Cleveland. But the lawsuit proceeds.<hr /></blockquote>
Now, you are walking talking and typing proof that it is better to be thought an idjit than to speak and remove all doubt.

Please, don't disgrace your family anymore with your foolish denial of reality.
===============================

Well done, El Lying Scumbag! You found an op-ed piece (not a legitimate news item) written by an attorney paid by the Pacific Legal Foundation. &amp; who are these PLF folks, one might ask? Golly gee whiz, it turns out that the PLF is a group that works actively to oppose any and all efforts to protect the environment or public health. Their ‘forest thinning’ agenda – is about giving commercial timber interests access to old growth trees in National Forests under the guise of ‘thinning’ (you know, the ones that are co-incidentally worth the most money AND the most fire resistant?)

They’re a conservative organization that represents commercial business interests. Among their most staunch supporters and financial contributors? Phillip Morris the folks who make their living selling an addictive, cancer causing drug that kills people.

Phillip Morris “…enlisted the organization (together with think-tanks like the Reason Foundation, Hoover Institute, Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute) to write op-ed pieces that were planted in newspapers attacking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its determination that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was a carcinogen and its attempt to regulate Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). (See page 4 of this planning document.[4]).” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Legal_Foundation)

In case you’re still wondering, El Lying Scumbag, the jury’s no longer out on the cancer causing effects of ‘Environmental Tobacco Smoke’. But it’s heartwarming to see that you’re happily casting your lot with the folks who would pretend otherwise – and why? Why to sell more of a drug that kills people, of course. How heroic! &amp; they want to help save our forests too? How noble!


BTW: I especially enjoyed the irony of this particular quote: <font color="blue">” One reason is that for years, groups that literally make a living by obstructing government efforts to manage forests have filed myriad lawsuits intended to delay, stall or stop anything resembling science.</font color> A comment written by a lawyer who literally makes his living by obstructing environmental lawsuits. Up to and including planting op-ed hit pieces in major newspapers!

ROTHFLMAO!! Good one, El Lying Scumbag!!!

Isn’t that special, you can tell that the PLF is certainly devoted to good public health and preserving public resources. Not!

Interesting to note the part about : how they were ‘hired to write op-ed pieces and plant them in newspapers attacking…’ I mean, how co-incidental is it that LWW in his infinite wisdom has copy/pasted an op-ed hit piece written by a lawyer who writes op-ed pieces and plants them in major newspapers? Business interests, mind you, who stand to make substantial financial gains if the old growth timber in our National forests is made available for them to ‘thin’.

LOFRICKINGL!!

This is an organization that much like the lying sack of $hit we know as ‘LWW’ is fully willing to stretch any truth or capitalize on any human tragedy no matter how disconnected – as long as it promotes their opportunistic agenda to make money.

The hidden agenda here and the irony of the entire ultra-conservative ‘thinning of the forests to save them from fire’ argument? They’re not remotely interested in saving the forests (except for financial gain of course) – they want to use ‘thinning’ as an excuse to get in there and cut those big old valuable trees down. In other words? It’s about them fighting to get their greedy little paws on our remaining wilderness areas.

How funny that they should pretend that their goal is to ‘keep the trees safe from fire’. Keep them safe from fire but not their chainsaws? Uh huh, sure – that’s the ticket El Scumbag!

Word has it that eight hundred square miles went up in smoke in that fire. Even if we accept the dubious forest fire figures provided by the obviously biased PLF, we’re talking about 156 square miles of the total 800 that burned. That’s less than twenty percent of what burned.

<font color="red">What about the lion’s share, LWW? You know, the 80% that burned up that wasn’t forest? The part you keep studiously ignoring? The chaparral – the really, really big part?

You’re trying to blame left-wing environmentalists for both the Tahoe fire and ALL of the So Cal fires. Let’s hear you explain how that’s possible? You haven't done it yet. Could it be because you can't? That you were just blowing hot air as per usual? Seems more and more likely as post after post you continue to duck the questions.</font color>

Talk to me about the Tahoe fire, somehow magically blamed by you on frivolous environmental lawsuits. How could that be when there were no environmental lawsuits filed to stop thinning. None, zero, zip, for ten full years? Why would you expect a copy/paste from an SF Chron op-ed hit piece, written by a shady lawyer working as a mouthpiece for a conservative legal organization to suffice as an 'answer'?

His efforts (The PLF's efforts and YOUR EFFORTS) to turn the SoCal fire tragedy into an opportunity for political gain - is disgusting. Meanwhile you keep ignoring the facts regarding the lack of environmental lawsuits in Lake Tahoe or the 600 plus square miles of brush that burned up down in SoCal? Quite the forthright wordsmith. Pontificating, Bragging, blowhard, a$$hole, bull$hit artist, is much more like it.

Do you expect your anti-environmental PLF hired-guns writing op-ed hit pieces and ‘planting them’ in major newspapers to suffice for an explanation for your duplicity? Give me a fricking break.

You lied about where to place the blame for the Lake Tahoe fires and you're lying about where to place the blame for the SoCal fires. You're just like the Energizer Bunny, LWW - Only instead of going and going and going? You keep lying and lying and lying.

http://i13.tinypic.com/82k83sj.png

When I'm beaten down, I'll let you know. Not going to be that easy El Lying Scumbag - not that easy at all.

BTW: I sure hope you've got more to offer than the bogus bullpap you've been trying to feed us all so far? What a disappointment (not) to learn that your hype vastly exceeds your actual ability. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
11-09-2007, 11:54 AM
Richard, I think it's great that you take the time to repudiate, put down, the pontifical proclamations of this pompous pr**k. (I'm a fan of alliteration)
I wonder though, if you Gayle, Hondo, myself stopped replying to him (I already have)...would he just be "talking" to himself here?
About the only one's nodding agreement with him are the two sycophants, he brought over with him. In a thread he began the other day, he felt it was so **** interesting, that he was forced to reply to himself some 17 times. I'll bet this narcissistic ***** gets an erection when he sees himself in the mirror?
I just checked awhile ago...some 25 people on board...and only one looking at the NPR....can't put the entire blame on him for turning people off....but then, he ain't exactly attracting people over here with his "educational" material.
I'm thinking of just taking a month off, make a novena to St. Jude,who works the small, but impossible "miracles" for the faithful...."please St. Jude, make this **** go away; give us back our message board"

wolfdancer
11-09-2007, 02:37 PM
LOL !!!!!!!
What's an even bigger joke then his posts is his childish belief that people fear him. Probably thinks that security blanket he carries with him, is Superman's Cape
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/peanuts/meet_the_gang/images/meet_linus_big.gif

LWW
11-10-2007, 03:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> LOL !!!!!!!
What's an even bigger joke then his posts is his childish belief that people fear him. Probably thinks that security blanket he carries with him, is Superman's Cape
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/peanuts/meet_the_gang/images/meet_linus_big.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Nah, it's the cowardice of the left to actually discuss things on a factual basis that makes me think you fear me.

Actually, it's the truth you fear ... I just happen to be the bearer of it.

Ciao,

LWW

eg8r
11-10-2007, 09:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, if the land is properly maintained the fires as we see them do not happen.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, if there was no arson we would not be discussing this and you would not be losing an embarassing debate with SONoma.

But since your posting persists why not answer SONoma's question? I will post it here so you can clearly see it. You keep saying the environmentalists were blocking the "manicure" of the land as you would like, so why not answer SONoma's very specific question?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SONoma's question for LWW:</font><hr> Talk to me about the Tahoe fire, somehow magically blamed by you on frivolous environmental lawsuits. How could that be when there were no environmental lawsuits filed to stop thinning. None, zero, zip, for ten full years? <hr /></blockquote> There you go, should be easy for you to knock down, right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

S0Noma
11-10-2007, 11:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Either way, if the land is properly maintained the fires as we see them do not happen.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, if there was no arson we would not be discussing this and you would not be losing an embarassing debate with SONoma.

But since your posting persists why not answer SONoma's question? I will post it here so you can clearly see it. You keep saying the environmentalists were blocking the "manicure" of the land as you would like, so why not answer SONoma's very specific question?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SONoma's question for LWW:</font><hr> Talk to me about the Tahoe fire, somehow magically blamed by you on frivolous environmental lawsuits. How could that be when there were no environmental lawsuits filed to stop thinning. None, zero, zip, for ten full years? <hr /></blockquote> There you go, should be easy for you to knock down, right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
================================================== ====


Thanks Eg8r, but the fact is, arson or not he would still be trying to baffle his opponents with bull$hit. That's his style and it's all he's got.

Take this early post of his where he offers up a link that he alleges to be a review FROM the GAO that completely affirms his position.

http://i16.tinypic.com/712ky6c.jpg

Except it's not FROM the original GAO report at all - that was a lie. It's actually an attack piece posted on an anti-environmentalist website ABOUT a GAO report on forest thinning. A report that was written over four and a half years ago.

http://i8.tinypic.com/6t53azt.jpg

I decided to look at that article a little closer. If you have a minute, read the paragraph with the catchy lead in 59 Percent Appealed and do it slowly enough where you can catch the segue from facts to fiction. It happens in a blink of an eye (way too fast for our pea brained friend Mr. LWWscumbag to catch - but then, dang, he's not interested in facts so why would he care?).

Here's the quote from the article with my comments inserted and highlighted in blue.

59 Percent Appealed

<font color="blue"> (59 Percent of what? Aye there's the rub!)</font color>

The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal.

<font color="blue">There it is over fifty percent of the entire number of thinning proposals were NOT subject to appeal by anyone, any time - including 'evil environmentalists. What that means (LWW I know you're reading this so I'm trying to use small words and type slow - hoping that you can follow.) is that over half of all existing Federal forestry thinning proposals at that time had gone forward with no legal opposition whatsoever. Because they were legally exempt from appeal. </font color>

Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.

<font color="blue">Okay, again for our retarded friend, LWWdummy - if you have a total number of proposals and you subtract more than half of them? How many proposals do you have left? Answer: Less than half.

Of the b]Less than half[/b] part, a little more than half (59%) got appealed. What is a little more than half of Less than half?

Answer: Not more than and probably less than 25% of the total forestws acres impacted by Federal thinning proposals.

So, maybe a quarter of all Federal forestry thinning projects got appealed by third parties (Sierra Club Etc.) and of those we have no way of knowing how many were 'frivolous appeals' and how many actually had merit (were heard and approved).</font color>

This conservative websites critique of the GAO report does offer us one more skewed but tantalizing stat:

“According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.”

What I want you to notice here is that 900,000 acre figure. How many tens of millions of acres do you think there are in all the National forests put together? What percentage of the total National forest acreage is 900k? Well, if we only had ten million total National forest acres then that figure would be less than ten percent - wouldn't it?

I'm betting that the actual figure of forest thinning impacted by litigation is closer to less than five percent of our total National forest acreage.

All I'm trying to point out here Eg8r is that LWWindbag has been making grandiose and sweeping accusations that environmental lawsuits have been blocking ALL forest thinning efforts (which is a blatant lie) and therefore (according to our resident blowhard) ANY forest fire that starts up ANYWHERE can be laid at the doorstep of the evil environmentalists.

Hence his screaming insistence that the Lake Tahoe fires absolutely, positively had to be due to evil environmentalists and their evil lawsuits as well as the horrific fires that recently devastated 800 square miles of Southern California.

He's lying plain and simple, Eg8r. He's willing to lie through his teeth, exaggerate, bend facts, skew statistics and use bluster and bluff and guile to bully his opponents into submission.

As you well know by now, I'm not submitting. No reason to - he's a pompous a$$ and a liar.

We can all see that now.

The truth is that Emperor LWW has no clothes.

S0Noma
11-11-2007, 12:13 AM
Regarding the 2003 GAO Report:

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Member, Senate Energy &amp; Natural Resouces Committee:

...“Today the GAO released its report, which shows that the vast majority of forest-thinning projects done in the last two years were undertaken without delay. According to the GAO, three out of every four projects moved ahead unchallenged. Of those that were challenged, most were resolved within 90 days. (In fact, even though it has the authority to do so, the Forest Service did not reduce the timeframe for settling a dispute.) What’s more, the GAO noted that a vast majority of acres thinned were excluded from environmental review.

<font color="blue"> LWWindbag - I think he's addressing numbskulls like you here: </font color>

“I suppose that there are some who will remain unconvinced, and they will comb this report for a statistic that distorts reality, all in an effort to weaken our environmental laws. For example, I anticipate that some folks will single out the relatively few decisions that the Forest Service reviews on appeal. They may make it seem as if this is the norm rather than the exception. <font color="red">However, a careful, comprehensive analysis of this GAO report makes it plain that a vast majority of forest-thinning projects move ahead without any challenge, and that the 24 percent of projects that are challenged are the most controversial.</font color>

GAO Study Shows Environmental Laws, Citizen Appeals Not an Impediment to Reducing Wildfire Threat (http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=203857)

LWW
11-11-2007, 07:10 AM
Many have been cited.

To continue this discussion with an apoplectic moonbat who confuses half or what he posts and plagiarizes the rest is pointless.

The 2 of you are free to live in your little paradise known as dementia.

LWW

S0Noma
11-11-2007, 08:04 AM
<hr /></blockquote> Well, if there was no arson we would not be discussing this and you would not be losing an embarassing debate with SONoma.

But since your posting persists why not answer SONoma's question? I will post it here so you can clearly see it. You keep saying the environmentalists were blocking the "manicure" of the land as you would like, so why not answer SONoma's very specific question?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SONoma's question for LWW:</font><hr> Talk to me about the Tahoe fire, somehow magically blamed by you on frivolous environmental lawsuits. How could that be when there were no environmental lawsuits filed to stop thinning. None, zero, zip, for ten full years? <hr /></blockquote> There you go, should be easy for you to knock down, right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Many have been cited.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

When all is lost and you find yourself standing amid the smoking rubble of an indefensible position?

When you cannot answer a question because you have no answer?

When it would take the courage of a man with integrity to stand up and admit defeat but you are not that man?

Simply lie through your teeth and claim that you have answered the question already not 'once' but 'many' times.

Then run for cover and hope no one's noticed.

Sorry LWW - but we've ALL noticed.

Everyone knows you now for the cowardly, blustering, blowhard that you really are.

Thanks for your able assistance in this regard. I couldn't have done it without your help.

Sonoma

hondo
11-11-2007, 09:48 AM
What! LWW retreat! Say it ain't so, buddy.
Keep searching right wing sites.
There's GOT to be a SPIN!

wolfdancer
11-11-2007, 01:36 PM
While LWW claims to know all the answers, I doubt if he's even heard about the Draconian TPRA, a Government agency....that recently fined a landowner there, and an attorney, no less, $100k for cutting down a tree to improve his view of the lake.
They also regulate any clearing of brush...which was the major contributer to the start of the fire.
Bush's "thinning" idea had nothing to do with fire prevention, just as strip mining has nothing to do with a concern for miner's safety.....it's purely a financial windfall for the insider's.

wolfdancer
11-11-2007, 01:48 PM
How did you put up with two years of his crap on AZB, and still put up with it today? He thinks what he writes is like the Nicene Creed, and his bobble head admirers, believe they are reading the dead sea scrolls when they read his s**t.
Problem is though...he keeps painting himself into the proverbial corner, and has to back track, or change the topic....I'm concerned about his mental health though, since
he keeps getting trounced by Sonoma, but keeps announcing
"Mission Accomplished" victory, over on AZB.
What a small man to have to do that to get his jollies.

hondo
11-11-2007, 08:05 PM
Trust me, he'll be back, Wolfie.
The forums are apparently all he has.
Every once in a while he gets trounced,
retreats &amp; sulks for a while, and then bounces
back.
Despite his claims to the contrary, these forums
seem to be his life.
Honestly, I don't dislike him like you would imagine.
There have been several times when he has come to
bat for me, and I imagine I might like him if we met.
I'd like to meet him.
Arguing politics is a big game to him and this is
what he truly enjoys. The arrogance has really
pissed me off over the years and I've gotten pretty
nasty with him, but he is what he is.

Qtec
11-11-2007, 08:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I decided to look at that article a little closer. <hr /></blockquote>

I bet LWW is now wishing he did the same! LOL

Q

LWW
11-12-2007, 04:17 AM
Actually LWW has watched with glee as the peanut gallery has made a fool of their collective selves.

You think that because you find one spot of fire caused by arson or lightning that you have proved something.

Well, you have. You have proved yourselves to be fools once agains.

Guess what, had the lands been properly maintained the lightning strikes and arson would not have allowed fires to spread because the natural tinderbox wouldn't have existed.

I sit in amazement wondering if the group arguing with me is truly that stupid or simply that informed.

Upon further review it appears that both are true.

Now, you may resume your scheduled circle jerk and pat each other on the head ... I'll let you guys choose which one ... about how smart you are.

Pathetic.

LWW

Stretch
11-12-2007, 06:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Actually LWW has watched with glee as the peanut gallery has made a fool of their collective selves.

You think that because you find one spot of fire caused by arson or lightning that you have proved something.

Well, you have. You have proved yourselves to be fools once agains.

Guess what, had the lands been properly maintained the lightning strikes and arson would not have allowed fires to spread because the natural tinderbox wouldn't have existed.

I sit in amazement wondering if the group arguing with me is truly that stupid or simply that informed.

Upon further review it appears that both are true.

Now, you may resume your scheduled circle jerk and pat each other on the head ... I'll let you guys choose which one ... about how smart you are.

Pathetic.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

LMFAO! You should be thanking them for even taking the time to comment on any of your raving, arrogant, pompous, abusive verbal diarrhea. If it wasn't for "them" (people of the real world) You'd have to sit stewing in your own bile. Most of the good people on this board will never participate in your threads because your not interested in discussion you only want confrontation argument and ego boosting to get off. If you havn't noticed already your "audience" only consists of about 4 or 5 regular respondents and it's a hostile audience at that. God you even suck at being controversial, KNOWONE CARES ABOUT YOU!

There, have a nice life. St.

LWW
11-12-2007, 08:38 AM
Yet you seem to.

LWW

S0Noma
11-12-2007, 09:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> You think that because you find one spot of fire caused by arson or lightning that you have proved something.

Well, you have. You have proved yourselves to be fools once agains.

Guess what, had the lands been properly maintained the lightning strikes and arson would not have allowed fires to spread because the natural tinderbox wouldn't have existed.

Pathetic.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Guess what? That wasn't your original argument and it's way too late now to try and pretend that it was.

It started here with your response to a Bill Maher commentary (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/27/fear/ ) that I posted.

There were two comments from Bill regarding the SoCal fires that were still raging at that time:
http://i11.tinypic.com/6nsas7s.jpg http://i6.tinypic.com/7y31jr5.jpg

The response that initiated this entire thread started with your reply to Bills comments:
http://i7.tinypic.com/8escwg4.jpg

Which, no matter how many ways I look at your response <font color="blue"> (The tragic fires devastating 800 square miles of Southern California were) "...the inevitable result of neoleftist insanity which prevents the forest service from properly husbanding forests to keep nature from doing what it is doing now."</font color> it boils down to one thing - you're trying to lay the blame for any major fires at the feet of environmentalists.

As you can plainly see, LWW, you weren't only arguing that 'proper maintenance' (thinning) would prevent or lessen the impact of major forest fires you were arguing that not only would it lessen that risk, the only reason it hadn't been done to ALL of our forests at this time was due to NEO-LEFTIST INSANITY (aka. 'environmental litigation').

As we get into it, it turns out that, indeed as I expected, you are blaming environmental litigation for preventing ALL of the National forests from being thinned of underbrush and overgrowth.

http://i7.tinypic.com/6pft6hd.jpg

Here's where you blame 'the neo-left' for stopping 'the program' (program = ALL gov't efforts to thin the forests and prevent forest fires):

http://i5.tinypic.com/87l3y4x.jpg

We really have no other option here, LWW, but to assume that you are blaming ALL forest fires on the neo-left for obstructionist environmental litigation. Litigation that according to your insinuation in the above post 'stopped the program'.

Later on when a careful analysis shows that, at best, environmental litigation may have hindered or stopped no more than 25% of the National Park Service's efforts to orchestrate thinning programs - you conveniently blow past the data as if it didn't exist. For the math challenged among us - if three quarters of all thinning efforts have been allowed to proceed, unobstructed by any litigation whatsoever - then to imply that environmentalist lawsuits have stopped them all and hence, 'evil environmentalists are to blame for ANY AND ALL MAJOR FIRES THAT BREAK OUT' is PATENTLY FALSE!!!

LWW, take a second to check out this analysis of the GAO report on forest thinning. It's important that you do because it's where your argument against environmental litigation obstructing ALL thinning efforts disintegrates:

http://i17.tinypic.com/6prxw6t.jpg

Admittedly, I had been trying to make this point by showing that there was no anti-thinning litigation involved in the major Lake Tahoe fires last June (a point that, in spite of numerous challenges from me, you were never able to disprove). Further, I kept hammering on the fact that the preponderance of the fires in SoCal were brush fires and had nothing to do with forestry thinning projects.

But the bottom line here, remains the same. Environmental lawsuits have not stopped 'the program'. Three quarters of the existing efforts to thin the National forests have not been hindered by any lawsuits whatsoever.

Your argument was that the frivolous lawsuits had stopped 'EVERYTHING and therefore environmentalists were to blame for any major fires that happened from that point forward.

Well, guess what LWW? At the time of the 2003 GAO report, environmental litigation had temporarily stopped or hindered less than 25% of the Forest Service's thinning efforts - not 100% as you so boldly implied.

So... you were WRONG - DEAD WRONG. Obfuscation, dodging direct questions, posting misleading links, twisting the truth? You are guilty of every one of these offenses.

Including this one - this REALLY BIG ONE - claiming to be willing to admit when you are WRONG:

http://i2.tinypic.com/6l2sfoz.jpg

<font color="red">You were wrong to blame environmental litigation for being the root cause of all forest fires. </font color>

You were wrong and not only are you refusing to admit it - you would now pretend that you never argued this point in the first place. You would have us believe that all along, you were only arguing the benefits of proper forest husbandry.

Which means that when you are proven to be WRONG you are not man enough to take your medicine and admit it.

As it turns out, in the final analysis, you are nothing but a blustering, cowardly liar and a fool. As such, you are not worthy of any respect in this forum - none whatsoever.

You have NO credibility.

End of story.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma

wolfdancer
11-12-2007, 01:55 PM
Stretch, of all the "put downs"...yours is the best, short, but right on the $$$!!!
Hondo says he is leaving soon....soon as he composes his farewell, concessionary speech????

eg8r
11-12-2007, 02:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Every once in a while he gets trounced,
retreats &amp; sulks for a while, and then bounces
back.
Despite his claims to the contrary, these forums
seem to be his life.
<hr /></blockquote> Hondo, if I had not read the thread, I would have thought you were referring to yourself. You usually will go away and hide for a while only to come back in for a little while. I don't follow AZB so I don't know if you do the same thing over there.

With that being said, I think you and lww thrive off each other. The two of you post back and forth between each other more than anyone else. You follow each other around the different boards and probably have the same relationship on each one, who knows.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2007, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the clarification. Even though we usually do not see eye to eye on some of the discussions here, I do enjoy reading your posts. lww is getting beaten pretty bad here.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2007, 02:57 PM
LOL, you really are a goof. Keep up the good fight. SONoma just used your own source against you and you are still at it.

eg8r

S0Noma
11-12-2007, 07:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Thanks for the clarification. Even though we usually do not see eye to eye on some of the discussions here, I do enjoy reading your posts. lww is getting beaten pretty bad here.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Yes he is - he started out wrapping himself in the American flag using this avatar: http://i14.tinypic.com/6wn6umr.jpg

Then when he ran into serious trouble he declared himself 'armed with a broadsword of truth' and switched to this one:

http://i17.tinypic.com/89lnuxi.jpg

It didn't help.

Now that he's had his cowardly a$$ kicked yet one more time he's run off back home to AZB to lick his wounds. Gee whiz, it's not nearly so much fun to come to the NPR and bully and browbeat everyone when you end up having your covers pulled and shown up for the whinnying windbag that you really are instead.

Funny how that works.

I'm guessing that he's going to have to change his avatar before shows his face around here again.

What is the international avatar symbol for 'PU$$Y' anyway? Wait a minute, I found it!

http://i7.tinypic.com/82apk0l.jpg

Heck, we'll know soon enough when he shows back up here with more of the same old smoke and mirrors act.

Like the one that he just got owned over.

Frankly, I lost track of the number of times he arbitrarily declared victory in this thread. It was good for more than one laugh. Kinda reminded me of how he declared himself the winner of the last thread after I served him his lunch the first time:

http://i17.tinypic.com/6z6m23m.jpg

Never let it be said that LWW is one to let the truth stand in his way. Get your a$$ handed to you? Well hellsbells, just yell loud and long that it was you who really won!

As the saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Take it easy Eg8r and remember! "It just wasn't what we thought!"

Sonoma

hondo
11-12-2007, 10:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Every once in a while he gets trounced,
retreats &amp; sulks for a while, and then bounces
back.
Despite his claims to the contrary, these forums
seem to be his life.
<hr /></blockquote> Hondo, if I had not read the thread, I would have thought you were referring to yourself. You usually will go away and hide for a while only to come back in for a little while. I don't follow AZB so I don't know if you do the same thing over there.

With that being said, I think you and lww thrive off each other. The two of you post back and forth between each other more than anyone else. You follow each other around the different boards and probably have the same relationship on each one, who knows.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I quit posting on here for a while because it got boring watching you get trounced over and over.
I left AZ for a while because I got tired of all the nastiness.
This board has become interesting again.
I imagine you are whining because the attention has been diverted from you.
As for the rest of your accusations, it appears to me that
because you miss the attention, you're just trying to stir
up some crap. Sound about right?

LWW
11-13-2007, 05:06 AM
If you define "beating" as redefining words, who can use the most profanity, who can use half truth and innuendo the most, and who has the most blatant disregard for reality ... and sadly those are the rules in this forum and not the exceptions ... then your analogy would make some perverted sense.

Out here where the air is clear and the KoolAid taps are shut off things are different.

In the meantime this has been great comedy.

LWW

S0Noma
11-13-2007, 06:20 AM
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-
-PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y--PU$$Y-

hondo
11-13-2007, 06:51 AM
these forums
seem to be his life.
<hr /></blockquote> Hondo, if I had not read the thread, I would have thought you were referring to yourself.



eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Eg-7168 posts
Hondo-1320 posts
Yet you said I could be talking about myself?
If you add CCB, AZ &amp; all my years at Playpool,
they don't add up to 7168 posts!
I'd say I have a life outside of the forums.
How about you, buddy? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
11-13-2007, 08:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This board has become interesting again.
<hr /></blockquote> The only thing you find interesting is that your goons have followed you to another board in which you can instigate them.

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine you are whining <hr /></blockquote> I am not whining, I am simply pointing out your shallowness and hypocrisy. Every time you tell us your perception of those two I see you. You deserve them which is why you follow them around and mention them in all your posts. Even when you respond to a post that does not even mention them you bring them up. Act like an adult and give up this child's game you are playing.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2007, 08:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg-7168 posts
Hondo-1320 posts
<hr /></blockquote> That is right. I have been a member of this board since before we ever moved to these style of forums. I am loyal to this board and do not wander all over the net looking for people to instigate. You on the other hand roam looking for people to pick a fight with. If I did not know better I would think lww was another name you post under. After more careful thought I know that cannot be possible because sometimes it looks like he has put thought in his posts, I never notice that in any of yours. You are nothing but an instigator looking to start a fire everywhere you go.

If you don't like my opinion crawl back in the hole you just escaped from. I am waiting for your whiny post where you tell us you are no longer posting because you cannot handle the beating. It has not happened this month but it is coming you are too predictable. You did not earn the nickname "honDUH" for nothing.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2007, 08:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you define "beating" as redefining words <hr /></blockquote> Before I read any more of your post of which you have decided what I mean let me clarify it for you. You look like an idiot in this argument. SONoma (whom I rarely agree with) has beat down every one of your posts. To top it off he even used your own source against you. You continue to foolishly post and he continually knocks you back down.

eg8r

LWW
11-13-2007, 11:26 AM
My friend, again you mistake stupidity for having a point and sophomoric behavior with debating skills.

Let's review your genius here:

Your claim is that the econuts aren't responsible because;

1-You can find instances where the fires were caused by arson or lightning. D'UH! That's the entire point ... an overgrown forest goes up like a tinderbox whenever anything happens. That's how nature handles things and not doing proper forestry puts the time and severity of the fire back into nature's hands.

2-The econuts aren't responsible because they only took the forestry dept to court 24% of the time.

Now, apply that to anything else to see how foolish those points are.

"Your Honor, I'm not a bank robber ... I only robbed 24% of the banks in town!"

Please, get something besides another, possibly plagiarized, moonbat rant which deflects the facts with arguments that would make hippie pool blanche.

LWW

Qtec
11-13-2007, 11:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let's review your genius here:

Your claim is that the econuts aren't responsible because;
<hr /></blockquote>

No. This thread is about YOUR claim.
S has demolished your wild claims about the Libs and the environment.
Give it up. You are wrong.

Q

wolfdancer
11-13-2007, 12:35 PM
while he absurdly claims to be very intelligent (yet his own posts betray him)...he's much too dumb to realize he's fighting a losing battle.
The problem is if he stops posting, stops trying to debate Sonoma, it wouldn't look well, with his claims on AZB.
AND His ego quotient is twice that of his IQ score, which is an even greater problem for him.
One only has to look at his ridiculous tag line, to see that it was of great importance to him, that some old guy, with a limited intellect, offered a concession, rather then get involved in a penis measuring contest with him.
I'm probably the first person in his entire life to do that.
But, I feel kind of sorry for him...he's become the "Whipping Boy" here.

hondo
11-13-2007, 03:22 PM
That tine of the month again, Eg?
Or are you just bi-polar? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

hondo
11-13-2007, 03:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
This board has become interesting again.
<hr /></blockquote> The only thing you find interesting is that your goons have followed you to another board in which you can instigate them.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I imagine you are whining <hr /></blockquote> I am not whining, I am simply pointing out your shallowness and hypocrisy. Every time you tell us your perception of those two I see you. You deserve them which is why you follow them around and mention them in all your posts. Even when you respond to a post that does not even mention them you bring them up. Act like an adult and give up this child's game you are playing.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

No, trust me, you are whining. Several people have
been going round &amp; round with him INCLUDING YOU.
I have made few replys lately &amp; yet you have singled me
out.
When you 1st attacked him I thought it was rather noble of you.
Noble schmoble! You were just jealous of him for who knows what God-awful reason.
All of a sudden somebody was coming across as a bigger arsehole than you and you pride yourself as being the biggest Crybaby, nut-job arsehole on here.
Well, cheer up, EGG. You've returned to number one in my book. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

S0Noma
11-13-2007, 04:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> My friend, again you mistake stupidity for having a point and sophomoric behavior with debating skills.

Let's review your genius here:

Your claim is that the econuts aren't responsible because;

1-You can find instances where the fires were caused by arson or lightning. D'UH! That's the entire point ... an overgrown forest goes up like a tinderbox whenever anything happens. That's how nature handles things and not doing proper forestry puts the time and severity of the fire back into nature's hands.

<font color="blue">Here comes the hot air from Mr. Blowhard again...blowing like those 85mph Santa Ana winds in Southern California that acted like a gigantic bellows and turned the SoCal fires into an out of control blast furnace. A blast furnace that couldn't be stopped by anything man could do until 800 square miles of Southern California had gone up in smoke. This the driest year on record down there in the past century. Yet, we are to be convinced that properly thinning the twenty percent of the area that was forested would have stopped 100% of that 800 square mile fire in its tracks?

Umm hmm, sure.

LWW, you truly do amaze me. Just when I think I've got a handle on how narrow and shallow your mind is? You turn the handle on the vise and close the jaws of that excuse you have for a brain - a little bit tighter.

So, according to this latest spin we are to imagine that all along I've been trying to argue that lightning and arson cause fires. While you, on the other hand, have been arguing that poor forest maintenance sets the stage for fires to burn out of control regardless of what starts them?

So, now I have to ask you in all seriousness: Is there a parallel thread on a parallel forum on a parallel planet with a completely different colored sky - that a parallel me has been arguing with a parallel you about something so inanely stupid as the insipid garbage you're trying to pass off here and now as having been the 'central focus' of this thread?

Just asking?

Because if after everything that's been discussed and articulated and highlighted and properly linked to and properly quoted and carefully analyzed by me in this thread adds up to that conclusion in your book? You should know up front - that dog ain't going to hunt. </font color>

2-The econuts aren't responsible because they only took the forestry dept to court 24% of the time.

Now, apply that to anything else to see how foolish those points are.

"Your Honor, I'm not a bank robber ... I only robbed 24% of the banks in town!"

<font color="blue">LWW, last time I checked this is still a democracy and it's legal to use proper channels to fight any government action with which you disagree. When the day comes that lawsuits contesting government action can be equated with bank robberies? Something will be very seriously wrong with this great nation of ours.

You have shown us no proof that any of those lawsuits were without merit. Nor do you have proof that the environmentalists behind the lawsuits have managed to bring the wheels of the entire forestry dept. to a grinding halt. But you would like us to believe that they have.

(Come to think of it, you're woefully short on lots of proof in this thread - almost as if you imagine that something happened to magically release you from the obligation to back up what you claim with proper references. FWIW: Nothing happened to relieve you of that responsibility - what happened was that you couldn't find any proof - so here we are with you babbling and me making you look like a raving dunderhead.)

Back on topic: Why is it that you want us to believe that they have? Why, when it's clear that over three quarters of all 'thinning' efforts have gone forward without any lawsuits at all?

Why is it so important to you for us to believe that 100% of any and ALL major forest fires are now due to those few environmental lawsuits?

For example, research indicates there were no environmental lawsuits involved prior to the Lake Tahoe fires but you would have us believe that it still doesn't matter. Well, of course it matters bonehead. If there weren't any lawsuits to stop the thinning then you can't blame environmentalist lawsuits for that fire. There's your D'UH!, LWW. Why must you blame ALL fires on the environmentalists and their lawsuits when in the great majority of cases there weren't any lawsuits obstructing the forestries thinning efforts?

I gotta tell ya, LWW, all kidding aside, this last post of yours would have been better left unwritten. You've lost the debate. Accept it - you overstated - you blew things out of proportion - you couldn't back yourself up and now I've got you backed into a corner. Time to stand up and take it like a man - show us that you have that 'set' you constantly accuse the rest of us of not having.

Be a man, LWW - accept defeat and let's move on.
</font color>

Please, get something besides another, possibly plagiarized, moonbat rant which deflects the facts with arguments that would make hippie pool blanche.

LWW <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

wolfdancer
11-13-2007, 04:45 PM
640 views???
I'm thinking everybody was tryin to figger out what that word
magnaminous mean...

LWW
11-13-2007, 06:30 PM
Yet when given the opportunity to display your superior intellects neither of you had a set.

LWW

hondo
11-13-2007, 08:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> 640 views???
I'm thinking everybody was tryin to figger out what that word
magnaminous mean... <hr /></blockquote>

Yep. It's a big word like " mayonnaise".

nAz
11-13-2007, 10:23 PM
so i finally had time to sit back and read thread and i by no means care to follow everyone lead but LWW you got...



http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/2882/owned9wz.jpg

LWW
11-14-2007, 07:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> [<font color="blue">LWW, last time I checked this is still a democracy and it's legal to use proper channels to fight any government action with which you disagree. When the day comes that lawsuits contesting government action can be equated with bank robberies? Something will be very seriously wrong with this great nation of ours.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks for finally getting it junior.

Yes, they had the right to sue and did.

Yes, that decision to sue has consequences and as a consequence of these suits decisions were made which demanded nature clear the overgrowth rather than the US Forestry Department.

You have gloated so gleefully in your ignorance that you now prove me wrong by agreeing with me ... the only is that you want to give the econuts a pass on their actions, but you knew that.

PATHETIC!

Doesn't Sonoma County have anyone smarter than a fifth grader?

LWW

S0Noma
11-14-2007, 11:16 AM
LWW - the debate is over - you lost. You got owned. The fact that you won't face up to it says more about your character than any post I could write. In the end, I feel sorry for you.
You only pretend to have courage and honor when in fact you lack both.

Pretense and bluster isn't going to make it all better for you LWW. Sorry...

http://i19.tinypic.com/6yysuw7.jpg

SKennedy
11-14-2007, 12:34 PM
Sorry LWW...but you got to admit that's pretty funny stuff coming from SONoma!

wolfdancer
11-14-2007, 01:08 PM
He's still here? I thought he caught the "red-eye" express, back to AZB???
well,it all reminds me of that old Monty Python skit where the
guy keeps on fighting as his limbs are cut off...
web page (http://monty.python.videowall.sytes.org/?p=bGVFc3o5Y2k1WEUvTW9udHkgcHl0aG9uIC0gQmxhY2sga25 pZ2h0IChzdGFyIHdhcnMpz9wAfw)

LWW
11-14-2007, 03:29 PM
Oh, it's hilarious ... but watching delusional people usually is.

LWW

Qtec
11-15-2007, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yet when given the opportunity to display your superior intellects neither of you had a set.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Thats your problem right there. You see this discourse as a competition, not an exchange of information. You won't admit you were wrong because you think you will have lost.
Truth is , YOU made a stupid claim and S shot you down- not because he is smarter but because he took the trouble to find out the facts- not RW propoganda spouted by some blog or other that you WANT to believe is true.
You were wrong, admit it and we can move on.

Q

LWW
11-15-2007, 06:10 AM
Tell all ypur pals about how you similarly trounced me by showing that building #7 fell straight down from the bottom up while it blew debris outward as it imploded from silent demo charges planted by Bush.

Facts mean nothing here or to you or to moonbats in general ... but, you knew that.

LWW

S0Noma
11-15-2007, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Tell all ypur pals ...blah...blah...blah...


Facts mean nothing here or to you or to moonbats in general ... but, you knew that.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Translation: In this forum facts mean nothing to you, LWW - or your word either for that matter.

Take this post of yours for example, LWW:

</font color> http://i2.tinypic.com/6l2sfoz.jpg

Exactly what was it that you meant about your ability to 'admit when you're wrong'? I've proven you to be wrong in this thread, over and over again.

Yet, you've shown no such ability here. All you've done is point fingers and make more false and baseless accusations.

I can't help but conclude that your word is meaningless and that you really do prefer the cowardly behavior of a liar over the honorable behavior of a real man.

Well buddy, it's going to be a LONG TIME before you live this one down.

http://i13.tinypic.com/6q9pzcy.jpg