Michael Coslo wrote:

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent a
lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to the
point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies practices
were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and a lot of
people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti growth, and
worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in the
60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached a lake
about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat fish from
either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the competition,
took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left. The bill for the
cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a
better place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not
be poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old
eco-mantra 'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco
groups aren't exactly the best listeners either.

ac6xg

"Jim Kelley" wrote

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a better
place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not be
poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old eco-mantra
'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco groups aren't
exactly the best listeners either.

ac6xg

----------

And that is the answer in a nutshell.

The environmental folks have to make ridiculous statements to the news
media to obtain any coverage of their views. The general population sees the
wackos on TV and dismisses anything they have to say because, "they aren't
like us". But you will never get the general population to think through the
unusual clothing, phrasing and behavior of the environmentalists. How can
such brilliant folks (the environmentalists on the average) miss such a
mundane marketing practice as "do not alienate the customer"? It appears
that they could use some help from the very industrial folks they hold in
such high disdain.

Ed Cregger

Jim Kelley wrote in
:

Michael Coslo wrote:

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I
say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent
a lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to
the point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies
practices were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and
a lot of people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti
growth, and worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in
the 60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached
a lake about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat
fish from either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the
competition, took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left.
The bill for the cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a
better place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not
be poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old
eco-mantra 'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco
groups aren't exactly the best listeners either.

Jim, I'll give you a universal truth. It is all about money. Nothing
else. Either through the chemicals or the world class fishing stream.

Take your pick. Have a company that comes in, pays about 20 people a
little above minimum wage, and maybe 5 managers a decent wage for a few
years. Or a setup that keeps returning money as long as it can be kept
up?

Know what the problem with well constructed holding areas is? If you try
to insist on them, it will cost the company more money, and in an effort
to avoid that, you are painted as an eco-nut or a tree hugger. I was
perhaps remiss in that the quality of the holding ponds was part of the
controversy. You might be glad to know that the design settled upon saved
the company a lot of money. Great, huh? Showed the tree huggers a thing
or two. Problem was, it leaked like a seive. Roughty equivalent to just
pouring th echemicals on the ground, which would have saved the company
even more money.

Contrast that to millions that would have come in if the fishing stream
was protected and maintained.

As a person who stood to make money on one of the two endeavors,
which would you prefer? One that could make you a whole lot of money over
a long long period of time, or the ten year model that puts a lot less
money into the community, eventually leaves you footing a very large
bill. What we did, we lost money on, not made money.

No tree hugging, no Sierra club, no leeeburuls, no "Corporations are
evil", nothing but pure bottom line. Money. Why would you be against
making as mouch money as possible? I like capitalism myself, how about
you?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
No tree hugging, no Sierra club, no leeeburuls, no "Corporations are
evil", nothing but pure bottom line. Money. Why would you be against
making as mouch money as possible? I like capitalism myself, how about
you?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Then I suggest you listen to rush linbaugh (sp?) He clearly explains
that there is nothing wrong; things are good and only getting better!

However, I think he is mainly speaking to those which enjoy the smog
polluted airs of Los Angeles and drinking water containing chemicals I
have great difficulty pronouncing. Those who think the climbing numbers
of sterile males is "natural." Those who like the charts showing
climbing numbers of cancer, birth defects, etc. Those who never did
like the taste of salmon and can certainly rejoice in its' extinction,
etc., etc.

You know who I speak of, those who will only empty the trash can when
garbage starts hitting the floor and stinking so bad it takes their
breath away, and they ponder why the rats have taken on such a sickly
look ...

Regards,
JS

On Jul 16, 8:39*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:

Jim, I'll give you a universal truth. It is all about money. Nothing
else. Either through the chemicals or the world class fishing stream.

Take your pick. Have a company that comes in, pays about 20 people a
little above minimum wage, and maybe 5 managers a decent wage for a few
years. Or a setup that keeps returning money as long as it can be kept
up?

Know what the problem with well constructed holding areas is? If you try
to insist on them, it will cost the company more money, and in an effort
to avoid that, you are painted as an eco-nut or a tree hugger. I was
perhaps remiss in that the quality of the holding ponds was part of the
controversy. You might be glad to know that the design settled upon saved
the company a lot of money. Great, huh? Showed the tree huggers a thing
or two. Problem was, it leaked like a seive. Roughty equivalent to just
pouring th echemicals on the ground, which would have saved the company
even more money.

Contrast that to millions that would have come in if the fishing stream
was protected and maintained.

* * * * As a person who stood to make money on one of the two endeavors,
which would you prefer? One that could make you a whole lot of money over
a long long period of time, or the ten year model that puts a lot less
money into the community, eventually leaves you footing a very large
bill. What we did, we lost money on, not made money.

No tree hugging, no Sierra club, no leeeburuls, no "Corporations are
evil", nothing but pure bottom line. Money. Why would you be against
making as mouch money as possible? I like capitalism myself, how about
you?

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?

W4ZCB
over 30.

Harold E. Johnson wrote:

...
This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?

W4ZCB
over 30.



Oh, good!

Your post brought this to mind:

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...687445/-1/NEWS

Just thought you might enjoy it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Jul 17, 10:38*am, "Harold E. Johnson" wrote:

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup.

Yes, but one could take consolation in the fact that with enough self-
righteous indignation and proselytizing, there would eventually be a
law against it.

ac6xg

Harold E. Johnson wrote:
- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?


Probably not a whole lot, Harold. For that matter, there isn't a whole
lot in the newsgroup that is on topic,these days. Or if it is, it is
just a rehashed argument that has been going on for months now. Bleh.

Heck, even the original thread was off topic. So do you want us to go
back to the topic of the thread, of just quit posing on the topic.

Outlook should be able to allow you to filter us though. Might be a
better option for you.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Jim Kelley wrote:

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.


The problem with soundbites and bumper stickers and tiny mantras is
that they appeal to the least common denominator.

Ideas and theories in nutshells belong in nutshells.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -