 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
I gotta say, I don't get this one. A few odd birds get killed. Can't say I like it, but at the same time, how many get killed by the pollution of a coal-burning power plant? Seems counter-productive to me. I don't know a tree-hugger that would agree (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) So Joe Smith Toxic Waste Dumping, Inc. can fund a watchdog organization to demonstrate that it's safe to dump industrial sludge into the local reservoir. Is that what you're envisioning? (...) Independent of the interests it purports to (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Such orginisations are normally funded by those they a supposed to police. (...) I agree. (...) You are missing the point. Improving air safet is not the point. Too many libertarians are concerned only with saving $$ - to give *themselves* (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Of course your state is having a power crisis. Market forces. California is offering more money to the independent power companies than you are. What do you expect them to do, sell it to you for less than they can make? So, you have to pony up (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Some of those blades must move *much* faster than the ones I've seen, which look like they're traveling at a pretty leisurely pace. Sounds like we need some scientific observation on the natural rates at which birds run into obstacles. Steve (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
|
(...) I jumped on you for insulting Suzanne (it wasn't the first time, and you know darn well what I'm talking about), for insulting our intelligence, for questioning our integrity, for acting with an egregiously pompous attitude (once again), and I (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) independent (...) who (...) Whomever wished to..? (...) Independant of what? (...) I'm pretty happy with the private consumer advocacy that I sponsor. (...) The shareholders? (...) think (...) Actually, I know very little about the FAA. I (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Oh my GOD. You're kidding, right? I mean, the British just built tunnels for hedgehogs, and let behavioral modification take its course. The birds would learn, soon enough...the Canada geese sure learned fast how not to migrate! Have you seen (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) All good questions that the court of public opinion would have to satisfy, and thanks for reminding us of them, Dave! (1) Ask yourself them about the UL or ANSI, though, under the current system. When I did, I got entirely satisfactory (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
|
(...) Who would fund such an organization, and how can it make any credible claims of independence? I don't deny the value, in theory, of the organization, but I don't believe that we can trust it to be any more impartial than existing watchdog (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
