Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (23615)	7/14/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, I could list a slew of activities which harm people and the environment. Does that mean they should ALL be banned! 1. Lawn Mowers. (noisy eat gas, who needs grass anyway.) 2. Deisel engines. (Too noisy) 3. Planes. (jet fuel, oh so horrible, and people crash in those personal ones all the time.) 4. Cars. (oh wouldn't you and AL Gore love to ban these, ban Sunday drives) 5. Water skiing, what a waste, running around throwing gas everywhere, for what?) 6. Boating. (Riding around in a boat, just to wave at a bunch of friends, what a waste of fuel) 7. Fishing. 8. Snow sledding 9. Helicopter rides. (flying around just to see the area, C'mon just look at a T.V.) 10. Parachute skiing. (riding around in a boat, so that you can hop up in the air a hundred feet, how silly huh?) What do these activities have in common Christine? Most are done for pure FUN! Something a Greenpeace activist hasn't a clue about. The fact that a few people get injured on a personal watercraft, does not justify banning them. The person wanting to ban a freedom, should provide JUST evidence that the activity harms the environment or other people in an onerous way. If personal watercrafts meet that criteria, than so do a WHOLE lot of other activities. The only reason the "radical liberal left" have gone after personal watercraft in the San Juan Islands, is because a few extremely wealthy liberals don't want to hear them from their million dollar mansions on the water. Poor babies. The same ones who take the SUPER loud gas guzzling ferries to and from Seattle everyday! Total hypocrites! The hypocrisy from the far left, and their ability to rationalize it never ceases to amaze me. Banning personal watercraft from the San Juan Islands is just another example from a long, long list. Michael

To: Grainne who wrote (23615)	7/14/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If environmentalism is labeled a religion then it can be treated as a subjective subject like other religions- but unlike the question of whether Christ walked upon the water (a debatable subject) one can state as fact the effects of dioxin on waterfowl at known concentrations. One can model the "dead zone" off Louisiana caused by agricultural runoff. One can count (very effectively) the number of fish species, year by year, their age and weight, and get a pretty good idea of what is happening to a given population. that is how the Russians know their sturgeon are disappearing. Nothing but juveniles left, and even those are disappearing. The same is true for hundreds of other fish species. This is fact- because one can go out and count, and measure and weigh. As far as I know you cannot count measure and weigh Gods, or any of the tenets, miracles, etc attendant to any Gods. So I think it is of extreme importance to say that environmentalism does not have to be a religion- some people might make it one- but what it can be is simply making sure that all creatures HAVE an environment in which to live. I am particularly concerned that my children have an environment as free from toxins as possible, where the air is breathable, the water drinkable, and where there exist sustainable resources.