[poquas]

Yogi wrote:

'The smartest six year old you will ever come across! What is your excuse?

You still haven't answered what I consider to be a straight-forward question. Or are you not capable of doing so?

What is YOUR alternative solution to what you see as 'The Tar Sands Issue'?


Now since we are in agreement ( to a degree) that the process could be improved upon, and since you keep skirting my questions, let's move on.

Would you be so kind as to grace us with your considerable expertise in environmental issues and comment in kind on the following serious crisis which I believe, today is still common and accepted practice 'in your own backyard!

***Note what such articles state about ALBERTA'S TRACK RECORD!

http://www.leas.ca/BC-falling-behind-re ... sewage.htm

OK Yogi, tell me how this is supposed to work.

Someone starts a topic and people can comment on the topic UNLESS it regarding something bad about Alberta. If it’s something bad about Alberta, you, Ziggy, MTBR, or Redneck will respond in “paranoid- defence” mode and rave about how bad things are in other places, and because the comment was about Alberta, it’s a hate Alberta position. If it’s really bad, just deny it’s true and start calling the poster names. I just want to make sure I understand the rules I’m supposed to play by.

Now as I see it, I don’t need to propose a solution to the tar sands to express my opinion that it’s an obviously bad thing. The fact the world press is now saying the same thing at the same time only supports my opinion. It doesn’t suggest I’m using it as a personal attack to everyone living in Alberta. If you guys are working in the field and are feeling a little guilty, that’s a good thing. It’s you guys that have to solve the problem, not me. If it’s going to cost me more at the pump to fix it, that’s also great. If the industry and the provincial government is going to continue to make obscene windfall profits while not changing anything, THAT’S NOT OK, and I don’t care how bad it makes any of you feel.

Now in your childish defensive response you want to deflect and discuss the sewage in BC, start your own topic about the sewage in BC, and I will agree that it’s a bad thing here too. I do what I can, where I can, and has little bearing on whether I wish to express my opinion or not. If it’s too painful for you or Ziggy or the rest to hear all the bad things in your province, don’t post and don’t respond. You obviously are happier in denial and oblivious to whatever situation might come up.

[Yogi]

poquas wrote:

OK Yogi, tell me how this is supposed to work.

Someone starts a topic and people can comment on the topic UNLESS it regarding something bad about Alberta. If it’s something bad about Alberta, you, Ziggy, MTBR, or Redneck will respond in “paranoid- defence” mode and rave about how bad things are in other places, and because the comment was about Alberta, it’s a hate Alberta position. If it’s really bad, just deny it’s true and start calling the poster names. I just want to make sure I understand the rules I’m supposed to play by.

Now as I see it, I don’t need to propose a solution to the tar sands to express my opinion that it’s an obviously bad thing. The fact the world press is now saying the same thing at the same time only supports my opinion. It doesn’t suggest I’m using it as a personal attack to everyone living in Alberta. If you guys are working in the field and are feeling a little guilty, that’s a good thing. It’s you guys that have to solve the problem, not me. If it’s going to cost me more at the pump to fix it, that’s also great. If the industry and the provincial government is going to continue to make obscene windfall profits while not changing anything, THAT’S NOT OK, and I don’t care how bad it makes any of you feel.

Now in your childish defensive response you want to deflect and discuss the sewage in BC, start your own topic about the sewage in BC, and I will agree that it’s a bad thing here too. I do what I can, where I can, and has little bearing on whether I wish to express my opinion or not. If it’s too painful for you or Ziggy or the rest to hear all the bad things in your province, don’t post and don’t respond. You obviously are happier in denial and oblivious to whatever situation might come up.

An opinion. Yes. But to continually berate any subject without even attempting to offer an alternative is blatant hipocrisy.

This is where you have been getting your ass kicked!

Our 'preceived anger' is not with 'Alberta haters'. It is about The hypocrisy displayed by you and others of like mind! 'You'( and I use the term 'you' in reference to all who hold your opinion on the matter) continue to state the obvious, of which we have readily admitted on several occassions, that the tar sands could be doing more environmentally than they are. The facts cannot be denied by anyone, and remedial processes are in place.
Still, you persist in berating 'our' poor record, without even attempting to offer up a better way of extracting the oil and dealing with the tailings, all the while continuing to purchase the 'finished products' which otherwise would not be available were it not for the raw products produced by the very same tar sands that you denigrate. Do you not see the hipocrisy in your position now?


Let me draw a parallel. The stance 'you' have taken in regards is no different than those who condemn Walmart for purchasing from suppliers who in turn use 3rd world labor, yet continue to purchase from Walmart because 'that's where the best deals are'!

[dino_bobba_renno]

Alta_redneck wrote:

This seemed like a good idea when oil was $140 a barrel, now it seems like a waste of money. But if we must, I kind of like this one suggested yesterday.

Alberta. Cleaning up Gods Oil Spill, one truckload at a time.

Catchy but I think "Alberta. Supplying Quebec with money one truckload at a time" is more appropriate.

[Zipperfish]

Harper and Ignatieff have both spoken in favour of the tar sands in response to the latest National Geographic article.

[mtbr]

Zipperfish wrote:

Harper and Ignatieff have both spoken in favour of the tar sands in response to the latest National Geographic article.

so has Obama , he called them OILSANDS!

[mtbr]

bootlegga wrote:

Diesel was higher for a few months last winter, after a fire at Scotford and a shutdown at Esso.

However, the Jetta gets me roughly 700 km on a 50 litres (almost 1100 km highway), whereas the Ford POS I owned previously got me about 350km on a 50 litre fill (only about 300 km in the winter). Therefore, I filled up half as often, saving me money. When it dropped back below regular gas, I got twice the bang for my buck, cheaper fuel price and better fuel economy.

a few months

it finally dropped below gasoline for only the second time in year..the first time was short lived.

[poquas]

[quote="Yogi"] An opinion. Yes. But to continually berate any subject without even attempting to offer an alternative is blatant hipocrisy.

What a pretentious load of bullshit!

If, in order to debate, or even offer an opinion on anything, one has to offer an alternative, you'd best keep your mouth shut. You're humiliating yourself.

Seems we're right back to you taking your own advice.

[Yogi]

poquas wrote:

Yogi wrote:

An opinion. Yes. But to continually berate any subject without even attempting to offer an alternative is blatant hipocrisy.

What a pretentious load of bullshit!

If, in order to debate, or even offer an opinion on anything, one has to offer an alternative, you'd best keep your mouth shut. You're humiliating yourself.

Seems we're right back to you taking your own advice.

For someone of 'your qualifications' you sure seem to be having a very difficult time trying to come up with intelligent answers to simple questions. In responding as such you have shown yourself to be the troll that you really are.

Turn off your computer now and go back to work...

[Alta_redneck]

ziggy wrote:

Yup!
That along with A.R.'s slogan would make a great T-shirt or bumper sticker.

First attemp Zig. Do you think the old pic of Ralph makes it ( as they say in the fashion world ) ummm, too busy.

[ziggy]

I would put the pic of Ralph giving the enviro-dude the finger on the back though.
The rest looks good.

[Yogi]

Alta_redneck wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Yup!
That along with A.R.'s slogan would make a great T-shirt or bumper sticker.

First attemp Zig. Do you think the old pic of Ralph makes it ( as they say in the fashion world ) ummm, too busy.

...and paying a substantial 'vig' to 'The Codfather'!