Fracking in the West -

nacho libre · 30-07-2011 1:43pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It is not in their interest to have any leaks, especially into the groundwater

Intel which more than likely has a microchip powering your computer also uses a **** load of chemicals and Dublin water, once again it is not in their interest to feck up.

On the other hand Moneypoint down Shannon and the like are quite literary dumping **** into the air including lead and mercury. All while all our "green" windmills are having a nap today with 30-50MW only > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

It's not in their interest for the public to find out. Quite simply if the risk were as benign as you make out, there is no way several US states would have banned this process.

Also I don't think it would be of much solace to someone if they lost a close relative to cancer due to the fracking process, if someone said to them that it was the lesser of two evils. It seems as if those intent on making huge bucks always cite progress, and treat the health risks as trivial or non existence. I suspect these supposedly independent researchers, whose results conveniently chime with those seeking to carry out Fracking, wouldn't be keen to live long term in an area where Fracking is being carried out.

frackingishell · 31-07-2011 5:19pm

this ei. sdraob kid is nothing but a WUM. i tried pm'ing them about the gwpf background, and questioned their motivations, in a polite and constructive and succint way, and all i got back from ei.sfraob is 'i've no time for conspiracy theories', and 'drill baby drill wahoo'.

I suggest people don't waste their time on this WUM anymore. Adding nothign to the discussion, and deliberately ignoring fact. Giving ei.sdraob any attention anymore is pointless.

Pete_Cavan · 25-08-2011 9:39pm

Just a heads up, tonights Prime Time will have a section on fracking around Lough Allen.

R P McMurphy · 25-08-2011 10:37pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Just a heads up, tonights Prime Time will have a section on fracking around Lough Allen.

Was good to see the issue raised on primetime and also the documentary gasland showing on current TV. How anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence can think that fracking is appropriate in this area is beyond me. There is a substantial bank of information available on this method of gas extraction and very little of it is positive.

As pointed out, relying on state agencies to regulate an industry with such a poor track record in relation to this particular process, in an area with an important water table, is a disaster waiting to happen

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 2:00am

All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.

oscarBravo · 26-08-2011 10:07am

frackingishell wrote: »

...i'm not being conspiratorial.

[...]

Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this.

Uh huh.

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 10:59am

frackingishell wrote: »

All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.

I don't agree. The time given to both on Prime Time was equal enough. The Tamberlane slickster (their CEO) was simply a better communicator. Leah Doherty wasn't as good. She came across as angry, her messages weren't clear enough, even a little confusing. She needs more experence; if she's to be the public face of the movement, she could benefit from some PR training.

I was disappointed because I'm very concerned about fracking in Ireland. I saw 'Gasland' in Donegal last June. I don't believe Tamberlane's 'no chemicals' whitewash; I also don't trust our government to regulate this. If there was even one accident, Ireland would be ruined. With no accident, Ireland would be scarred, pock-marked. Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

But I was disappointed in how Doherty held her ground. Energy companies have budgets, and representatives of movements like this are easily demonised. This movement has to be above reproach and, in my opinion, there cannot be any clear association with the Rossport campaign.

cavedave · 26-08-2011 11:18am

sarkozy

Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

You want to ban energy*? 'Food companies' operate for one reason only - profit

*edit this is a bit glib. My point is that we need the cleanest energy we can get. We are not going to change back to a lifestyle where we use significantly less energy in the short term

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 11:29am

cavedave wrote: »

You want to ban energy*? 'Food companies' operate for one reason only - profit

*edit this is a bit glib. My point is that we need the cleanest energy we can get. We are not going to change back to a lifestyle where we use significantly less energy in the short term

Did I say that? I said the very real risk to Ireland's water supply, in my opinion, far outweighs the extraction of energy.

ednwireland · 26-08-2011 11:45am

frackingishell wrote: »

All i saw was a piece by RTE that was very biased towards that smug get in Canada. The 'host' allowed him to ramble on for about 5 minutes, then Leah Doherty got about 40 seconds of railroaded under pressure time to speak at the end.

What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

These are facts, so i'm not being conspiratorial. Now i wonder why RTE gave him so much time, and her so very little to respond to his commercial presentation of 5 minutes? Someone (in government most likely- the people in control of the purse strings for RTE) is telling RTE what position to take on this. That host was NOT impartial.

i agree i watched this and thought that it was basically a platform for the exploration company, basically just the line we use water therefore its safe (honestly i dont know one way or the other whether its damaging or not BUT shattering rocks near aquifers cant be a good thing can it ?)

ei.sdraob · 26-08-2011 11:45am

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Was good to see the issue raised on primetime and also the documentary gasland showing on current TV. How anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence can think that fracking is appropriate in this area is beyond me. There is a substantial bank of information available on this method of gas extraction and very little of it is positive.

As pointed out, relying on state agencies to regulate an industry with such a poor track record in relation to this particular process, in an area with an important water table, is a disaster waiting to happen

So anyone who doesnt agree with you point of view is stupid? I believe that is the second time in this thread such an argument was made.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 11:49am

sarkozy wrote: »

I don't agree. The time given to both on Prime Time was equal enough. The Tamberlane slickster (their CEO) was simply a better communicator. Leah Doherty wasn't as good. She came across as angry, her messages weren't clear enough, even a little confusing. She needs more experence; if she's to be the public face of the movement, she could benefit from some PR training.

I was disappointed because I'm very concerned about fracking in Ireland. I saw 'Gasland' in Donegal last June. I don't believe Tamberlane's 'no chemicals' whitewash; I also don't trust our government to regulate this. If there was even one accident, Ireland would be ruined. With no accident, Ireland would be scarred, pock-marked. Simply, the risk is too high. 'Energy companies' operate for one reason only - profit - and I don't trust them. We should ban it.

But I was disappointed in how Doherty held her ground. Energy companies have budgets, and representatives of movements like this are easily demonised. This movement has to be above reproach and, in my opinion, there cannot be any clear association with the Rossport campaign.

You might be right there, but i have sympathy for her, as she was clearly ambushed by them claiming to be able to do it with no chemicals. That really came out of nowhere and the discussion then became about that, and not what has happened in the past in other countries.

Brilliant tactic by your man, i think it basically made everything Leah would have had prepared irrelevant to this particular program.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 11:52am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So anyone who doesnt agree with you point of view is stupid? I believe that is the second time in this thread such an argument was made.

arent you the guy that pm'd me- 'i dont care, drill baby drill'? You continue to revel in taking the opposite viewpoint for the sake of it on alot of threads, anyone with sense can see what you're at. pretty sad really.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 11:54am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Uh huh.

absolutely CRACKING contribution to the discussion. I'll be sure to put in writing the various sounds that *I* make in future too.

ei.sdraob · 26-08-2011 11:57am

frackingishell wrote: »

arent you the guy that pm'd me- 'i dont care, drill baby drill'? You continue to revel in taking the opposite viewpoint for the sake of it on alot of threads, anyone with sense can see what you're at. pretty sad really.

My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 12:08pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me

pestering you? all i asked was were you serious.

Anyway, methinks though dost protest too much. You continue taking the opposite side everywhere for the attention it gives you. good man.

nesf · 26-08-2011 12:11pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

My PM reply was an attempt to get you to stop spamming my inbox with your ravings (you were the one to pm me)

at no stage did I call anyone stupid neither private or public (if that the standard that the politics forum has fallen to...) tho i could not resist pulling the piss at you in reply to your pm to get you to stop pestering me

Report the PMs. The Admins will deal with it.

nesf · 26-08-2011 12:12pm

frackingishell wrote: »

pestering you? all i asked was were you serious.

Anyway, methinks though dost protest too much. You continue taking the opposite side everywhere for the attention it gives you. good man.

Hassling people over PM about arguments on here is not acceptable. Doing so will get you sitebanned. Is that clear?

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 12:26pm

i wasn't hassling anyone, i just wanted to ask was he serious in private, via Private Message. Is that allowed?

EI_Flyboy · 26-08-2011 12:29pm

FYI: Gaslland has been playing on Current TV on Sky if anyone's interested. It' part of Morgan Spurlock's "50 Documentaries to see before you die" season.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 12:30pm

nesf wrote: »

Report the PMs. The Admins will deal with it.

when did this guy's word become golden? I sent a civilised private message and got the piss taken out of me back. Maybe i should report PM back? What you reckon? OR, we could all act like grown ups and get on with it.

oscarBravo · 26-08-2011 1:03pm

frackingishell wrote: »

absolutely CRACKING contribution to the discussion. I'll be sure to put in writing the various sounds that *I* make in future too.

Allow me to elucidate, then.

You said that you weren't being conspiratorial. You then espoused a conspiracy theory. If you have evidence that the government are dictating a policy for RTE to follow, please adduce that evidence. If you have no such evidence and are operating off a hunch, don't claim that you're not being conspiratorial.

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 1:15pm

frackingishell wrote: »

You might be right there, but i have sympathy for her, as she was clearly ambushed by them claiming to be able to do it with no chemicals. That really came out of nowhere and the discussion then became about that, and not what has happened in the past in other countries.

Brilliant tactic by your man, i think it basically made everything Leah would have had prepared irrelevant to this particular program.

Yes. Very clever. And not to be believed, either.

Scofflaw · 26-08-2011 1:36pm

frackingishell wrote: »

when did this guy's word become golden? I sent a civilised private message and got the piss taken out of me back. Maybe i should report PM back? What you reckon? OR, we could all act like grown ups and get on with it.

Then either do that, or report the PMs if you consider them abusive. Either way, enough about this.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nesf · 26-08-2011 2:00pm

frackingishell wrote: »

i wasn't hassling anyone, i just wanted to ask was he serious in private, via Private Message. Is that allowed?

Unsolicited PMs are very dodgy territory. Sometimes they are absolutely fine, sometimes they constitute hassle. I would advise to think extremely carefully about whether you are stepping over this line before sending a PM.

ed2hands · 26-08-2011 2:07pm

frackingishell wrote: »

What really bothered me was, why was the guy laughing (literally) before he spoke each time? Does he not realise this is serious stuff? he really can't be that trust worthy, if he's giggling away about something that has destroyed so many lives and environments in the US and elsewhere?

He was obviously schooled by a slick PR guy in preparation for these types of interviews.

His smirking/giggling gestures were mostly in response to safety issues raised by the anti-fracking guest, and were a subtle but powerful way to give the audience the impression that these safety concerns and those who raised them were foolish and not to be taken seriously.

A slimy piece of work if i ever saw one judging by his performance and showed typical corporate arrogance and nonchalance in the face of genuine and proven environmental dangers.

EI_Flyboy · 26-08-2011 2:12pm

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

nesf · 26-08-2011 2:14pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

I'm a mod, a warning explanation was warranted.

EI_Flyboy · 26-08-2011 2:18pm

nesf wrote: »

I'm a mod, a warning explanation was warranted.

Yeah, I saw that and amended! Egg ALLLL over my face!!!

It'd be great if those guys removed their off topic posts though. It comes across as a squall in playschool...

nesf · 26-08-2011 2:23pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

It comes across as a squall in playschool...

Yes and no. Part of the reason for leaving them is to show people what kinds of behaviour is not acceptable.

cavedave · 26-08-2011 2:38pm

sarkozy

I said the very real risk to Ireland's water supply, in my opinion, far outweighs the extraction of energy.

And if you present quantitative evidence of the risks you might persuade it to become other peoples opinion as well.

Every existing energy source kills people and pollutes the environment. If a new one has really bad effects it would be silly to use it, but some sort of measurement of those effects is needed.

It is worth looking at estimates of proposed shale gas. If like in America the amount suddenly changes "Geologists Sharply Cut Estimate of Shale Gas" to 1/5 of previous estimates it might really put a dent in any economic argument to allow fracking.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 3:09pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Can you guys plaese drop it. Enough is enough, none of you come across in anyway dignified by dragging this out. And nesf, don't you chime in either, you're just adding to the spam...(Whoops, didn't see that you're a mod! my apologies!!!) Could you all please delete every off topic post? You're just dragging the whole thing down.

completely agree- delete everything off topic.

Unsolicited PMs are very dodgy territory. Sometimes they are absolutely fine, sometimes they constitute hassle. I would advise to think extremely carefully about whether you are stepping over this line before sending a PM.

Nesf, you're going on about PM's like they're inter spy-agency dead-drops and we're in the middle of the cold war. Boards isn't really that important. I don't think i've EVER thought 'extremely carefully' about anything on boards. I don't think this site would be even the little use that it is, if peole had to think extremely carefully about PM'ing someone and asking them if they're serious.

Delete all the twaddle, and keep the thread on topic....you don't need to give any lessons as you said, it's not like this is the first disagreement on boards......

nesf · 26-08-2011 3:30pm

frackingishell wrote: »

Nesf, you're going on about PM's like they're inter spy-agency dead-drops and we're in the middle of the cold war. Boards isn't really that important. I don't think i've EVER thought 'extremely carefully' about anything on boards. I don't think this site would be even the little use that it is, if peole had to think extremely carefully about PM'ing someone and asking them if they're serious.

Delete all the twaddle, and keep the thread on topic....you don't need to give any lessons as you said, it's not like this is the first disagreement on boards......

Quit arguing with me over this and just bloody listen. Next post arguing the point is a ban.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 4:00pm

Okey dokey. I'll agree with everything you say from now on.

karma_ · 26-08-2011 4:05pm

frackingishell wrote: »

Okey dokey. I'll agree with everything you say from now on.

Firstly, I am in complete agreement that fracking is bad news and would be opposed to it happening here, but you are not helping the argument at all with some of your posts.

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 4:11pm

karma_ wrote: »

Firstly, I am in complete agreement that fracking is bad news and would be opposed to it happening here, but you are not helping the argument at all with some of your posts.

Christ, neither are you sir! How about, we all stop talking about anything other than fracking...rigggghhhhht....NOW, at the end of this sentence, at the full stop, now.

thebman · 26-08-2011 5:15pm

I thought the woman on Primetime was terrible and came across as having a, not as long as I have breath in my body and even if they could mathematically prove it was safe would I allow it type of mindset.

I think if they can do it without chemicals then we need to look at the other issues around it and we should ban the use of those chemicals in fracking if they are that sure they can do without them then this shouldn't be an issue.

Scofflaw · 26-08-2011 5:30pm

thebman wrote: »

I thought the woman on Primetime was terrible and came across as having a, not as long as I have breath in my body and even if they could mathematically prove it was safe would I allow it type of mindset.

I think if they can do it without chemicals then we need to look at the other issues around it and we should ban the use of those chemicals in fracking if they are that sure they can do without them then this shouldn't be an issue.

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 5:41pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No they didnt.

What essentially happened was, Leah Doherty was ambushed by them saying they could do it with only water and sand. This was seriously out of the blue, and it took the discussion away from the negative impacts of fracking, to the RTE presenter having a go at Ms. Doherty saying, 'well, would you accept it if there's no chemicals' in it.

I think Ms. Doherty was definitely put in an unprepared position at that point, as doing it without chemicals is completely new and unknown.

The excuse the smug tamoboran guy made(who by the way, was literally laughing right through the interview), was that it wasn't that deep in Ireland compared to anywhere else, so it could be done with sand and water, as they wouldnt need the chemicals for lubrication.

To me this was a bit bizarre, but taking it at face value (which i dont), the only way this could be monitored and acceptable is if every single injection into the ground was supervised.

NOT taking it at face value, i see this as a cynical way to get this through the planning process, use just water that won't work (if it was that easy we could reverse global warming!), and when the wells have been built, say 'look, water isn't working, sure we have the wells, we have to use the chemicals', and the Irish Government politicians are bought and we have your traditional fracking.

i fail to see how simply pumping water 2km under ground will fracture rock to a depth deep enough to unleash buried gas in seams, even if it is only shale. And water has NEVER been only used with sand as a means to Frack.

This was an exercise in bullsh*t by the Tamboran guy. The fact is, that he was probably laughing because he and his mates had been discussing off camera to see if they could get away with saying they'd do it with 'no chemicals at all' on Irish television. just to shut Leah Doherty up and dismiss the whole point of the interview. He probably had mates just behind the camera making faces at him,that REALLY looked like what was happening- i've done it myself loads of times. and the thick Irish presenter, who hadn't done his research , took it hook line and sinker without barely a whimper.

Saying out of the blue like he did, that it can be done with no water, is akin to NATO saying there'll definitely be no civilian casualties on their next bombing mission. Assuage public opinion at the beginning, knowing full well that once youre in, there aint a damn thing people will be able to do about it. Donald, Dick and George, eat your heart out

That Tamboran lad is evil incarnate, by his track record, and i just got the feeling he was last night. That's just me though.

cavedave · 26-08-2011 5:58pm

The prime Time piece is on rte player here. The claim about lack of chemicals is at 20 minutes and again at 25.15. The piece starts at 15 minutes

frackingishell · 26-08-2011 6:07pm

cavedave wrote: »

The prime Time piece is on rte player here. The claim about lack of chemicals is at 20 minutes and again at 25.15. The piece starts at 15 minutes

if anyone's watching it, can you note the times when he's laughing at the Irish people aswell, particularly at the end of when other people are speaking. He plainly wasn't paying ANY attention, until he was addressed each time, and had to stop goofing around with his mates. I haven't got time until tomorrow to sit through it. It ws a serious lack of respect and a display of contempt if ever i saw one.

if he can't show any respect on a TV interview about Fracking to a national audience In ireland, why would he show any respect to our environment, ecosystems, and water tables?

sarkozy · 26-08-2011 7:57pm

frackingishell wrote:

i see this as a cynical way to get this through the planning process, use just water that won't work (if it was that easy we could reverse global warming!), and when the wells have been built, say 'look, water isn't working, sure we have the wells, we have to use the chemicals', and the Irish Government politicians are bought and we have your traditional fracking.

Agreed.

While the interview may raise heckles, your other comments are unfair. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But if the campaign is to win supporters, makes sense not to make emotively-charged assumptions?

Irregardless of chemicals being used/not used, surely if a well were to go wrong, at the very least, methane, sulphur, etc. would leech into the water table, killing flora and fauna, destroying our habitat and main source of drinking water?

HellsAngel · 26-08-2011 8:02pm

feicim wrote: »

I emailed all 166 TD's re fracking (2 days ago) so far I have 6 replies.

Labour - are emailing everybody else about it.
Fine Gael - Are ignoring it.

Fianna Fail - Seem to have faith that the institutional bodies will keep Ireland safe from the perils of fracking. (Without being opposed to fracking itself - similar to Labours position).

Sinn Fein and Socialist Party - Actively opposing it.

The lack of response (so far) from Fine Gael is disappointing and hopefully not ominous.

I would have expected FG's reply to be the same as FF. Labour - god only knows. Funny to see Sinn Fein supporting the crusty's

thebman · 26-08-2011 8:21pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Did they explain how they could "do it without chemicals"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No and I suspect like others that it is merely an excuse to try to get through planning as he also said it had never been done before and these were their top guys working on it but they have never done it in the US which seems odd considering the US is the most popular place for Fracking at the moment I think.

Even if it can be done without chemicals, there is no evidence that the process is safe still.

I'd really like to believe they could do it safely and relatively cleanly but it doesn't really seem like they can as they haven't explained how they hope to do it cleanly or if the gas could leak into the water table even using no chemicals which I imagine is the cause of the whole tap water flaming thing.

Anyway I don't think Irish politicians are stupid enough to just pass this TBH as the number of votes lost if they pollute the water table in the area would kill all their careers. Would have to be some pay off to go forward with the plans if they believed it was unsafe.

Scofflaw · 27-08-2011 1:16am

Saying out of the blue like he did, that it can be done with no water, is akin to NATO saying there'll definitely be no civilian casualties on their next bombing mission.

I'd have said slightly more akin to saying they would be able to conduct the whole campaign without weaponry. You don't generally drill so much as a farm well without some use of chemicals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

frackingishell · 27-08-2011 1:16am

sarkozy wrote: »

Agreed.

While the interview may raise heckles, your other comments are unfair. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But if the campaign is to win supporters, makes sense not to make emotively-charged assumptions?

I'll have as many emotively charged statements as i want. That's whats wrong with this country- people afraid to be emotive, and have a bit of passion for something. We're a nation of bystanders, watching ourselves taking it up the **** in the bathroom mirror and not even complaining. People like you are what's wrong with this nation, not the greedy scum that want to pollute the earth for their own greed.People like ei.sdraob or whatever his daft name is -at least they're honest about what they want. But there's millions of pathetic souls like like you- you believe in something, but youre afraid to be passionate, and you frown on others for being passionate? Or being passionate somehow makes someone's opinion less worthy? You're all afraid of your own shadow. I'm ashamed living in this country sometimes. At least the Greeks let their ire be known. We're a pathetic nation of subdued worms, like you...well i'll be passionate all I want pal.

PFFFT! sometimes i think why the f*ck do people bother trying to stand up for what's right. Then i realise, people bother not for people like you, afraid to look like a hair is out of place on your virtual and/or real head...but because it's for the environment, and ecosystems, and things we have a responsibility to protect, but that greed has blurred from our vision.

I don't want your support Sarkozy,so shove it.

frackingishell · 27-08-2011 1:20am

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have said slightly more akin to saying they would be able to conduct the whole campaign without weaponry. You don't generally drill so much as a farm well without some use of chemicals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed sir.

Matt Holck · 27-08-2011 1:26am

It'd be like shooting depleted uranium bullets it our own back yard
sick but survivable
wouldn't have to kill anyone outright

sarkozy · 27-08-2011 3:36pm

frackingishell wrote: »

I'll have as many emotively charged statements as i want. That's whats wrong with this country- people afraid to be emotive, and have a bit of passion for something. We're a nation of bystanders, watching ourselves taking it up the **** in the bathroom mirror and not even complaining. People like you are what's wrong with this nation, not the greedy scum that want to pollute the earth for their own greed.People like ei.sdraob or whatever his daft name is -at least they're honest about what they want. But there's millions of pathetic souls like like you- you believe in something, but youre afraid to be passionate, and you frown on others for being passionate? Or being passionate somehow makes someone's opinion less worthy? You're all afraid of your own shadow. I'm ashamed living in this country sometimes. At least the Greeks let their ire be known. We're a pathetic nation of subdued worms, like you...well i'll be passionate all I want pal.

PFFFT! sometimes i think why the f*ck do people bother trying to stand up for what's right. Then i realise, people bother not for people like you, afraid to look like a hair is out of place on your virtual and/or real head...but because it's for the environment, and ecosystems, and things we have a responsibility to protect, but that greed has blurred from our vision.

I don't want your support Sarkozy,so shove it.

I'll reply to this simply by saying: you couldn't be more wrong about me. For nearly 10 years, I've worked passionately to do what I can to eliminate poverty in the developing world. I've recently returned from working in a least developed country.

Your immature response is precisely what I mean.

Passion is vital. Arrogance like this hurts everyone. It's tactically absurd to claim to build while simultaneously excluding potential allies. Some might accuse such people of elitism. How can anyone achieve their goals this way?

This issue is far more important than me getting involved in a petty ego-contest.

Scofflaw · 27-08-2011 4:18pm

And, to add to sarkozy's comment above - frackingishell, you clearly want to be able to use boards as a platform for speaking to people about the dangers of fracking, but your rudeness, intolerance of disagreement, and smart-aleck responses place you in clear and immediate danger of losing access to the forum entirely.

Being passionate about something isn't simply an excuse for being rude, as you appear to believe.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Fracking in the West -

Comments