MtnGoat

hi veggieb, one's gotta move fast! love the handle by the way. my fave VB is the desperation move for what turns out to a firm grip on... a devil's club. Shit.

"But instead of taking the time to write us a quick message asking why it was gone you started this whiney little rant." I fully agree it was a whiny rant. What I don't get is when you tolerate all manner of far worse, this one is so special. Somehow, all kinds of folks here get to do far more abrasive, insulting, nasty posts than a whiny rant, but I'm out of line! "Maybe if you were a little more proactive then this whole debate wouldn't exist. So really, who was being unreasable?" It's starting to look as if it's both of us. You make a decent case. "To be honest nothing irritates me more then when people compain after we delete threads that are deemed inappropriate, especially when the are ignorant on the reason why." That's cool. Could I say, it's also really irritating to be on an interesting thread and have it yanked in it's entirety when engaged with all kinds of interesting folks because of some asshole who really is over the edge. How about locking the thread for a bit, deleting the offending posts, and inserting a message about what is going on and why? Can we split the difference, I won't post whiny crybaby posts if maybe bad posters are more surgically dealt with? Course you have all the power so I throw myself on your mercy. I'll pay trask a cigarette butt to give you a knobjob too, to sweeten the deal. I can understand irritation after a long week, I like this forum, so accept my apologies and go have yourself a beer. I can't expect others to be reasonable if I can't eat some crow now and then, can I. [ 10-25-2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

I see, now "gutless" is the equivalent of hey mother fucker. If you're going to moderate a board and allow the level of incivility, name calling, and all the rest it is your right as owner to allow, getting upset when it is taken to ever higher levels seems a bit odd to me. I made it clear in the very first post I understand it is run by a private party, acknowledged their (your) right to do so. But you've set the tone for what is acceptable in the first place. As moderator and owner, you are soley responsible for what you choose to allow. take a look again at hey mother fucker, the stupid fat kid in high school bit, posted by a moderator, and wonder again why someone may feel that taking it to another level is just fine. If what I have been told is correct, the thread will return after certain posters on it have been dealt with. That's all I need to know, and that's all I was informed of. I retracted my statements, as can be seen above, in good faith with that. [ 10-25-2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Due to PM, I've just been filled in by someone with a far better grasp of communication than "hey mother fucker". Thanks for the info, I stand corrected and I retract my statements above. Trask, cry me a river. If Jon wants to kick my ass off because he runs a board and replies to people like that, that's his buisness, but I'm not really sure it's yours. Hasn't stopped you before, but hey, I'd rather be pompous and civil, than be like you.

"cut those stupid political threads everytime! BTW - you missed one! Thank you moderators!! I hate that stuff!" then don't read it. This would be based on something called freedom, which entails something else, known to many as self restraint. Do you act this way in your private life too, expecting others to do for you what you lack the restraint to do for yourself? [ 10-25-2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"You know what mother fucker, if you have a problem send me a fucking email or PM" yeah thats more than likely given your tone with me, if you're willing to be like this in public, I can scarcely imagine what you're like in PM's. I'll pass, thanks.

mattp: "By the way, I note that I don't recall you resorting to threats or obscenity -- even though it is a hotly charged topic and one that is very personal to you. Thumbs up." thanks matt, I may get pretty sarcastic, or extremely direct, but I make a huge effort to never destroy my points with obscenities. Threats are even worse, I can scarecly make a case for considerate normal folks if I'm threatening people. Glad you've noticed even though I've been pretty darned direct with you many times. As much as we disagree, without civility, we're nowhere.

so what's up with that? start a section for spray, tolerate all manner of name calling and spewage in nearly every thread there is anyway... and get queasy over a gun thread? I come back to check up on who's reaming who on this entertaining issue... and find it's been yanked entirely. Gutless. If editorial control must be excercised, delete induhvidual posts causing the trouble. If the imaginary "right" to not be offended is being imnplemented here, fine, it is a private site and I understand that those who run it can do as they wish, fine. don't mean I can't ax questions... [ 10-25-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

population control will happen all on it's own, every nation's birth rate drops as it's economic situation improves, no external incentives are necessary as the personal incentives are quite powerful and entirely obvious, especially to women. Sure, it's incremental, and slow, but it's also self evident and based in personal choice.... which means it may not be fast enough for some but it is actual, real change because it's chosen not imposed.

"Sure, common good is a (admittedly fuzzy) moral concept, and its where I differ from Mtn Goat's vision of five billion people looking out for number one and screw the rest of you." Five billion people can look out for number one and take others into account in doing so. Don't *you* look out for number one, while still taking others into account? Of course you do. So do most people, I think. As for the "screw the rest of you", it would be better if you made it clear this is your view of what I believe, and not something I have ever espoused. Does this fact enter your deliberation when you consider my actual positions, or does your view of what I contend outweigh what I actually say? Looking out for others simply does not imply that doing so will result in actions you agree with. The problem seems to be some folks only count a decision as "looking out for others" if it meets their view of what looking out for others means. Folks can make perfectly honest, valid, and intentional choices to look out for others and still disagree about how that is achieved. What strikes me repeatedly in these discussions is the seemingly inherent expectation that "looking out for others" has only certain, particular actions always related to one innate view of a particular ideology as "good", namely one that inevitably involves some kind of enforced collectivism as a basis..... Instead of of allowing for the fact that this idea can be expressed in many, many ways, all valid and all honest. Just because someone's consideration of "the good of others" does not meet an implied standard that the result will follow "progressive" points for action, does *not* indicate such thinking has not occurred. I find that the good of others is best met by allowing said others the power to decide what is for their *own* good, not my imposition of a view of what is good for them. [ 10-23-2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"I was attempting to focus/waste all my time on the specific issue of why the desires of a few moneymaking polluters get equal time with everyone and their children who are forced to breathe and drink their detritus." because those moneymaking polluters only make money because many of us want their products, and if curtail them you impede others too. "I'm wasting enough time here as it is without having to think up a response to every one of your ceaseless jabs over minutia." The minutae of what you consider pollution is inseparable from your demand it be ended, because unless you detail what pollution is claims that all pollution must end except your pollution are at cross purposes. Making claims can only be judged by the standards they are judged against, and only you can tell us what your standards are. "AFAICT you're argument is that I can't complain about others polluting because I pollute myself." I have asked you to detail why your pollution does not count, and never claimed once you cannot complain while continuing to pollute. I may point out that it happens and you give yourself an out you deny others, I have not said you can't complain. Complain away. In this way I can critique your continued usage. What I want to know is why your choices are legitimate while those of millions of others are not. "No scale of degradation is taken into account." I am aware of this, and asking for this scale is precisely what I'm doing. I would point out that since producers build products for millions upon millions, that of course their scale will be larger, just as the sum total of many thousands of people's choices to go hiking or climbing on a weekend turns each small instance of degradation into a much larger one. "I feel you must take scale into account. I do not find my pleasure trips to the Cascades to be on an equal scale to an auto industry that markets inefficient automobiles to thousands of people just because they can." yet you climb, and use metals and oil, just because you can. This element of attacking what others do "just because they can" as if they are different from you is the issue here. How are they different? HHow do you decide what you do is not waste when you cannot in any way know why they do what they do nor what else they do you don't know about? It's the entire set of assumptions that allows you to opt out while convicting other who are merely using their personal desires to make choices that I can't figure out. I do not get how you seemingly know who chooses what, and why, using any basis other than massive assumptions about others. "I hope this answers your question." I appreciate the response, surely, but it doesn't answer my question. My elemental question is: why do you get to decide so many other individuals, you say you value in social threads, are making choices you don't like when you don't know them or why they make them, other than by assumption? [ 10-23-2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

easy, i get my work done on time and the shit works. Same reason I can take early escapes on fridays to get out of town ahead of traffic!

hey doc, did you ever see my response on how to a) implement national care without including those who wish to opt out, and b) how it's possible for folks to use differing programs? check the other thread.

well, there's been lots of talk about who does and doesn't "need" a particular kind of car, who does and doesn't "need" to commute in a particular way, etc. I take this as indicating "need" does not recognize that personal choices are sufficient to justify same. If ones arbitrary personal desires cannot validate need, then the arbitrary choice to waste resources and pollute traveling to climb is hardly valid.

"Sorry, but I see this as another dodge. Cars is not the issue." interesting how much you see as a dodge, when you will not discuss how your habits contrast to those you don't like the behavior of. such as traveling places you do not absolutely need to go, and supporting mining and drilling that creates the gear you use to do, what you do not need to do. This is the largest dodge there is, claiming others desires are not necessary ones while ignoring yours aren't either. [ 10-23-2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Now c'mon Greg. You know that's a dodge at best. The change came about primarily because of the government meddling in the free market." Sure, this particular change was forced by meddling. This is not however proof this change would not have occurred anyway, only that people can be forced to observe laws that are passed, something we already know works some of the time, kind of. "Do you think my neighbor should have had the choice?" To pollute your property without your consent at levels known to be toxic? No. How is damaging your property without your consent consistent with your self determination? It isn't. "Or should we have let the "market" take it's course?" The market did take it's course, seen generally. No one I am aware of supports transactions based in force or fraud, and from what I can see your neighbors actions violated the former. "Do you agree with the Seattle City Ordinance that prohibits turd dumping?" Surely.

"I made this point to my neighbor lady a few weeks ago when she said she hated guns." You should suggest she place a few signs around her property stating it is a gun free zone and see what she says.

"I don't see why their right to corrupt the drinking water should trump my right to live a life free of toxins in my water supply." Do you have such a right? You do realize even "natural" water sources contain toxins, toxins placed there by entirely natural processes? How does your "right" to water with no toxins, square with the fact toxins wind up in water via natural processes? Does your "right" to toxin free water also apply to water that must be cleaned even though the pollution, such as biological and chemical agents, may occur naturally? Who shall pay for this "right"? "Freedom to drink from public water supplies without fear of toxins. Freedom to breath the air without fear of toxins." It's impossible to demand a "right" to be free of "fear", because fear is entirely subjective, depends on each individual, and can be claimed for anything, anywhere, under any conditions. "Turns out that the nextdoor neighbors' sewer pipe went under our yard and was backed up and leaking raw sewage into our yard. Whose freedom trumps whose in this case?" He does not own your land, polluting land you own, without your consent, to a standard you can prove is harmful, violates your right of ownership. "I guess you really do understand what I mean by "soiling" so I won't respond that question." Not surprising. You complain repeatedly about degradation and environmental damage without specifying what you mean, then do not wish to comment on the very real impacts you incur in a chosen activity. Which you do on a whim which is not actually necessary except for your personal selfish reasons, which you find sufficient for you, but insufficient for others when they make similar choices. Where is the concern for others on the planet you show, when polluting their air so you can be happy? By not taking ownership of the damage you yourself cause, in this case emitting pollutants even you admit are pollutants, you appear to be claiming your soiling isn't soiling while absolutely attacking it in others. I for one am not interested in prohibiting you from questioning others pollution because you pollute, so you can feel free to answer why it's OK for you to pollute when you feel like it while using absolutes applied subjectively for others. [ 10-23-2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Why should the burden be upon us to offer "FINANCIALLY VIABLE" alternatives to inhibit wonton resource destruction?" because you are the one demanding others incur costs to serve ends you find desirable.

chuck says... "Greg seems to think that his statement validates degradation of the environment, because people who protest such activities are infringing upon the freedom and liberties of the degraders." I'm wondering what you find acceptable degradation, if any. It's not sufficient to simply be against "degradation" because your very life depends upon degradation of some kind occuring somewhere. "If called on this point, he makes up some bullshit sidestep of how mining and logging are very clean and don't hurt anyone." Again, where do you feel mining and logging is permissible in view of the fact that it must occur. [ 10-23-2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

I thought you'd like that j_b, all it demands is that those you claim support screwing others actually, personally, and expressely claim they do so. Not your contention that they do by your standards, their contention they do, by their standards. Inserting your judgement of someone elses claims, as their words and beliefs may pass muster with some, I expect a better standard... their own words. If one wishes to claim someone else says they support something, you should be able to show where they say it, not paraphrased, not your interpretation of their words, their *actual* words.

fair enough for this go round j_b.

"So how do you know if you are infringing on your neighbor or not?" IMO the problem here is the definition of infringement, which can be so broad as to be useless sometimes. Infringement to me means infringement upon their negative rights, which is not the same as having an effect on them because we unavoidably effect each other. They key here is, are their rights infringed by the effect? "This is simple economics you learn in high school with the example being two farmers. More can be produced, and more people succeed if their is cooperation and collaboration rather than I'll do what I want and you do what you want approach that you speak of." But cooperation does not imply forced cooperation, and neither does collaboration imply forced collaboration. If one person is making good choices and runs a productive farm, and another is not and runs a crappy farm, the do what I want approach is resulting in one party successfully producing. Cooperation is an obvious value when it is merited and as such people seek it without being forced to. Self organization results in lots of cooperation without the need for directed action imposed by external third parties. "And as for the ANWR troll, an article I read on CNN.com said that over 80% of the oil would not remain within our domestic border. It would be exported for more money!" It doesn't matter wether it remains in our borders or not, the existence of additional supply effects market prices regardless of who buys it as long as the purchase takes place on an open market. Markets do not need directed resources for price flexibility to occur. [ 10-23-2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"I think it's funny when "right wingers" talk about the left imposing restrictions on their freedoms, and then "the right" goes ahead and prevents legalization of marijuana, and continually tries to make abortion illegal. Who's imposing on who??" an entirely valid point and one I share.

j_b: What favor would that be? Are I now to assume that disagreement with you indicates the disagreer is calling you names? That's quite an assumption. Please provide evidence I for one have posted personal attacks on you using derogatives and namecalling. As pointed out before, there is a search utility for your use.