PDA

View Full Version : is water free



Pages : [1] 2

rocketsocks
05-14-2012, 17:42
When I was young I can remember my mother saying drink water it's free,when I would make a request for another soda while at a resturant.Over the years we are bombarded by all the bottled water that lines the selves at most stores.So is water free?should it be free?There are many places on the planet where clean drinking water is not available,and when I really think about just how lucky we are to have fresh clean drinking water,I feel very gratful,for it,and feel very fortunate to have it,whether it's free or not.Cause when you don't have it,you don't have it.What's your take on clean fresh drinking water,and what it means to you?

Samson
05-14-2012, 18:16
I have been to several countries where clean water is worth more than gold. I refuse to buy bottled water because i think it's a ridiculous product in the US most of the time.

Out of all the water on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth), only 2.75 percent is fresh water, including 2.05 percent frozen in glaciers, 0.68 percent as groundwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater) and 0.011 percent of it as surface water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_water) in lakes and rivers.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water#cite_note-2) Freshwater lakes, most notably Lake Baikal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal) in Russia and the Great Lakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_%28North_America%29) in North America, contain seven-eighths of this fresh surface water. - Wikipedia

And with that less than 1% of readily useable water what do we do with it? We crap it. A glass of water is priceless if you don't have one and you need one.

tdoczi
05-14-2012, 18:19
the only thing i can think of thats truly free water is water collected and drank untreated. everything else costs someone something.

Slo-go'en
05-14-2012, 19:20
My water comes straight from a small stream up behind the cottage. Don't get much better than that!

hikerboy57
05-14-2012, 19:27
find lewis blacks routine on bottled water its hysterical. he says aquafina is latin for "the end of water as we know it"
the water today is cleaner than it was 50 years ago, and yet people still have to buy bottled water(filtered from the tap)

rocketsocks
05-14-2012, 19:35
While on a trip to Yosemite years ago,I had heard the story of Hetch Hetchy and how Yosemite could have gone the way of Hetch Hetchy and been flooded for drinking water,for the many farms and towns.Also learned on that trip that if you took all the water in Lake Tahoe,it would cover the entire state of California 14 inches deep,thats a lot of water.

Pedaling Fool
05-15-2012, 12:13
Plenty of water, something like 70% of the earth's surface...technology makes it drinkable and it will become more accessible as technology advances.

Odd Man Out
05-15-2012, 13:23
Plenty of water, something like 70% of the earth's surface...technology makes it drinkable and it will become more accessible as technology advances.

We have the technology, but there is a huge energy cost, and technology can't change the laws of thermodynamics. As long as the cost of energy keeps going up, so will the cost of water desalinization. But if technology can bring the cost of energy down, then you have a chance. Until then, move to Michigan, we have 20% of the worlds surface liquid fresh water.

Pedaling Fool
05-15-2012, 15:31
We have the technology, but there is a huge energy cost, and technology can't change the laws of thermodynamics. As long as the cost of energy keeps going up, so will the cost of water desalinization. But if technology can bring the cost of energy down, then you have a chance. Until then, move to Michigan, we have 20% of the worlds surface liquid fresh water.I understand, that's why I said, "...technology makes it drinkable...". And it's much easier to make fresh water today than when I joined the navy many moons ago and will become easier in the future; although I'd admit that the pace of advancement in this area is much slower than many other areas, but we'll get there.

rocketsocks
05-15-2012, 16:01
I understand, that's why I said, "...technology makes it drinkable...". And it's much easier to make fresh water today than when I joined the navy many moons ago and will become easier in the future; although I'd admit that the pace of advancement in this area is much slower than many other areas, but we'll get there.While on a trip to Aruba a few years back,we had taken a side trip to a small barrier reef Island called De Palm Island,directly across from De Palm on the main land is a Desalination plant,absolutely huge.A little further down the coast is the oil refinery(the old Mobile now Valero)Working in the trade as a welder/fitter I had an appreciation for both....even on vacation.I would also like to take the tour of Hover dam,at the foot of Lake Mead,on the Colorado river.

TD55
05-15-2012, 17:03
I hope nobody mentions all the free clean, clear mountain spring water we get to drink on the AT. We need to keep that secret a secret.

peakbagger
05-15-2012, 17:05
Nestle (AKA Poland Spring) has wells and bottling plants all over Maine. A lot of folks think the water comes out of a magical artesian well and they have the old Poland Spring House for effect but the reality is they drill down in gravel aquifer and pump away. Plenty of gravel aquifers as result of the last few ice ages, but also plenty of radon gas for people like me who live on a lump of slightly radioactive granite.

rocketsocks
05-15-2012, 17:16
I'm not sure what regulations exist today on bottled water,but back when designer bottled water first hit the seen in the early 90's there were virtually none....or so I was told,by many plumbing inspectors.A bottle could say it was from the __?__,and that it didn't matter if it was or wasn't.

tdoczi
05-15-2012, 17:33
I hope nobody mentions all the free clean, clear mountain spring water we get to drink on the AT. We need to keep that secret a secret.


so you dont treat or boil your water? because if you do, it isnt free.

Mikey Appleseed
05-15-2012, 17:59
Water is a war tool in some areas of the world, its a war tool to some farmers. In my neck of the woods we have a giant mining history that has ruined alot of water, even hurting local fishing holes with mercury, so yes I beleive water was free, now its hard to find water free of polutants, but hey, if your thirsty and its wet.........

TD55
05-15-2012, 18:05
so you dont treat or boil your water? because if you do, it isnt free.
Why would you treat or boil spring water that you can see coming out of the ground?

Pony
05-15-2012, 18:16
TD55, exactly what I was thinking. I grew up on spring water and would never think of treating it. In fact it baffles me when people put chemicals in it.

If you ever want to get freaked out about what's in water, read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. I know the book was written 50 years ago, but still, there must be some residual effect.

rocketsocks
05-15-2012, 18:19
Water is a war tool in some areas of the world, its a war tool to some farmers. In my neck of the woods we have a giant mining history that has ruined alot of water, even hurting local fishing holes with mercury, so yes I believe water was free, now its hard to find water free of pollutants, but hey, if your thirsty and its wet.........All along many areas of the mid Atlantic states (and trail) there has been coal mining going on for a couple hundred years,and while many of those areas have there share of pollutions,some have made great effort to clean up the spoilage,though some areas are gone for good,until mother nature has her way of a couple millennium to undue what man has done.Mining Co. can no longer start mining until they submit for approval(and have a bond in place)plan for reclamation.Though a "Bald" base ball diamond on top of a Mountain is no substitute,It's a heck of a lot better than a heaping piles of waste rock and run-off.

rocketsocks
05-15-2012, 18:28
TD55, exactly what I was thinking. I grew up on spring water and would never think of treating it. In fact it baffles me when people put chemicals in it.

If you ever want to get freaked out about what's in water, read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. I know the book was written 50 years ago, but still, there must be some residual effect.I have a friend that has well water and a leach field for raw sewage,he says all the time that he thinks it's the sewage that imparts the sweat taste to the water....he may be right,and his water does have a good taste to it.:Da lot of people just don't realize that for many places,the water just comes out of the ground,nothing fancy,just straight out of the ground.

rocketsocks
05-15-2012, 18:31
I have a friend that has well water and a leach field for raw sewage,he says all the time that he thinks it's the sewage that imparts the sweat taste to the water....he may be right,and his water does have a good taste to it.:Da lot of people just don't realize that for many places,the water just comes out of the ground,nothing fancy,just straight out of the ground.that "Sweet Taste" not "Sweaty taste":eek::o

oldbear
05-15-2012, 19:19
When you do the math you find out that the rarest substance in the universe is the cheapest substance on Earth
Using a high cost of $ 4.00/ 1000 gallons of residential tap water
You get a cost of $0.004 per gallon
and using 8 lbs per gallon
You wind up with a cost of $0.0005 per lb

Pedaling Fool
05-16-2012, 10:30
If living an organic lifestyle is so important to someone, then maybe they should consider only purchasing organic water:rolleyes: Just another example of how stupid and sheeple-like people can be, especially when it comes to the topic of the environment.




'Organic' Mineral Water? German Court Allows Statement of the Obvious




NUREMBERG — Can mineral water, which comes up from the depths of the earth and must simply be filled into bottles, be called "organic"?

Absolutely, says the German firm Lammsbräu. It bottles water from its own springs with labels bearing a house-designed "bio" (organic) seal and sells it under the name of BioKristall. And now the Nuremberg Court of Appeals has given its stamp of (legal) approval. Judge Manfred Schwerdtner ruled that the Lammsbräu water was "different from many other mineral waters," and therefore the description of it fulfilled consumer expectation. The word bio in the name did not suggest some form of state licensing was behind the product, although the court ruled that the company seal, in its resemblance to an existing German eco-seal, could confuse consumers and would have to be changed. (See what's so great about organic food.) (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2011756_2011730,00.html)

It was nevertheless a victory for the BioKristall producer, which had appealed an earlier court decision in a case brought by the Frankfurt-based Centre for Protection Against Unfair Competition. There could be no such thing as organic water, the court originally ruled, as there were no legal guidelines or other regulations governing its production.

On average, every German drinks 131 L of mineral water a year, up from 40 L in 1980. A spokeswoman for the Verband Deutscher Mineralbrunnen, an association of producers, said that each mineral-water producer tries to distinguish their product by finding a niche centering on "region, special ways of bottling, seals and other marketing means." So far, no one else had come up with organic water, only water mixed with organic products like fruit juice. (Watch TIME's video of an organic-food-taste test.) (http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,590143391001_2012180,00.html)

German consumer magazine Oeko-Test is skeptical, saying: "Organic water partly fulfills stricter standards, but conventional waters are frequently as good."
Lammsbräu does, however, place great store in the environmental and social implications of its products. The company located in Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz is a pioneer of organic-beer brewing, and in 1992 was the first European brewery to be compliant with E.U. regulations for organic farming. All ingredients used in the beer are from regional organic farms, and brewery trucks use vegetable oil for fuel.

It remains to be seen if consumer-protection groups take the BioKristall case to the country's Supreme Court.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099873,00.html#ixzz1v2iRlLkL

Odd Man Out
05-16-2012, 13:47
If living an organic lifestyle is so important to someone, then maybe they should consider only purchasing organic water:rolleyes: Just another example of how stupid and sheeple-like people can be, especially when it comes to the topic of the environment...

Hey, I hear that it's also fat free, cholesterol free, trans fat free, gluten free, and HFCS free! I got to get me some of that!

Biggie Master
05-16-2012, 15:54
The BEST water isn't free, because it has to be treated with barley, malt, and hops! :cool: I certainly wish there were a few springs like that along the trail (trail towns don't count).

peakbagger
05-16-2012, 15:54
Sounds like pretty nasty stuff to me

http://www.dhmo.org/

rocketsocks
05-16-2012, 16:03
Good find John,It has always been my understanding that "Pure Water" only exists in a Laboratory setting,and that all others,(though not all bad),are to some degree tainted...big difference between tainted,polluted,pure,and fortified....but only by its constituent's.

rocketsocks
05-16-2012, 16:16
The BEST water isn't free, because it has to be treated with barley, malt, and hops! :cool: I certainly wish there were a few springs like that along the trail (trail towns don't count).Oh, but there is,It's called "The Big Rock Candy Mountain"! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pqfo5dD8U

Pedaling Fool
08-06-2012, 10:09
"Water Issues" always interest me, I'm not sure why. I'm always looking at various water laws, like the ones that prohibit rain barrels... There's a vote in the fall concerning the water supply of San Francisco. Will be interesting to watch. Here's a link: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21235901/yosemites-lost-valley-will-be-subject-vote?source=most_emailed


A pretty good book on the history of this issue: http://www.amazon.com/Dam-Politics-Preservation-Yosemite-National/dp/0375422315

Title: Dam! : water, power, politics, and preservation in Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite National Park
Author: Simpson, John W. (John Warfield)

Yosemite's lost valley will be subject of vote

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif.

—This fall San Franciscans will vote on a local measure with national implications: It could return to the American people a flooded gorge described as the twin of breathtaking Yosemite Valley.

Voters will decide whether they want a plan for draining the 117-billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, exposing for the first time in 80 years a glacially carved, granite-ringed valley of towering waterfalls 17 miles north of its more famous geologic sibling.

The November ballot measure asks: Should city officials devise a modern water plan that incorporates recycling and study expansion of other storage reservoirs to make up the loss?
The measure could eventually undo a controversial century-old decision by Congress that created the only reservoir in a national park and slaked the thirst of a city 190 miles away.

The battle over Hetch Hetchy, first waged unsuccessfully by naturalist John Muir, had turned the Sierra Club from an outdoors group into an environmental powerhouse. The fight gained momentum in recent years when unlikely allies joined forces. On one side are Republican lawmakers and environmentalists, including Ronald Reagan's former interior secretary, who want the dam removed and valley restored. On the other are Democratic San Franciscans, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, fighting to hold onto the city's famously pure drinking water in a drought-prone state.

"Eventually it will be broadly understood what an abomination a reservoir in a valley like Yosemite Valley really is," Donald Hodel, the former interior chief, told The Associated Press. "I think it will be hard to quell this idea (of restoration). It is like ideas of freedom in a totalitarian regime. Once planted they are impossible to repress forever."

Over the past decade, studies by the state and others have shown it's possible for San Francisco to continue collecting water from the Tuolumne River further downstream.

But the city never seriously has considered giving up its claim to the valley.

"This is a ridiculous idea," Mayor Ed Lee said. "It's a Trojan Horse for those that wish to have our public tricked into believing we have an adequate substitute for the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. We do not. There isn't any."

The gravity-fed system serves 7 percent of California's population, city water officials say. Turbines from its dams generate hydroelectric power for city buildings, streetlights and traffic signals, the airport and the transit system. And two-thirds of the water from the system is sold to neighboring municipalities.

All of this for just $30,000 a year. That was the rent set by Congress when it passed the Raker Act in 1913, giving San Francisco exclusive control and use of the Hetch Hetchy valley, despite opposition by 200 newspapers across the country and after a week of contentious debate.

For the next decade stands of black oaks that had shaded deer and bear along the Tuolumne River through the half-mile-wide valley were removed along with 6 million board feet of lumber used to build the dam. By 1923, water began flooding what once were lush meadows.

In recent years, politicians have argued that San Francisco is getting a bargain and that the rent should be increased. Others have said San Francisco is violating the Raker Act because the city's transmission lines stop 30 miles short of the city and that Pacific Gas & Electric profits by carrying it the rest of the way.

With opposition from then-Mayor Feinstein, Hodel brought the issue back to life in 1987 as a way of alleviating crowds and traffic in Yosemite Valley, which now sees 4 million visitors a year.

Most recently the George W. Bush administration tried funding a feasibility study, but it was quashed politically by Democrats when Pelosi was Speaker of the House.

"San Francisco is known as a progressive city in many ways, especially environmentally. But in water, it's just not the case. We've got a very sweet deal," said Spreck Rosekrans of
Restore Hetch Hetchy, who has studied the issue for 20 years. "Restoring the valley would undo the greatest wrong that has ever been done to a national park."

Studies by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the state Department of Water Resources and others show restoring the valley is technically feasible. The cost estimates range from $3 billion to $10 billion.

"On top of that staggering price tag, replacing the water supply is unrealistic when California already lacks infrastructure to provide enough water for its economy or environment," said Feinstein. "We should move past this debate and focus on real solutions to California's water challenges."

The opposing sides also dispute the impact of reservoir removal. The Hetch Hetchy group says the city would lose 20 percent of its 1.7 billion kilowatt power-generating capacity, roughly the amount of excess production sold at cost to the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts. The city says it would lose about twice that much, which would cost $41 million.

In addition, utilities officials say water rates would increase by up to $2,777 per household a year and the city would be vulnerable during droughts.

Mayor Lee and others argue that the timing is wrong to spend so much money on a project that ultimately could make Bay Area water deliveries less reliable.

Proponents say passage of the measure in November would give San Francisco a chance to plan for restoration on its own terms. Voters would decide in four years whether to move forward with the plan.

"The opposition to removal is akin to the famous expressions many years ago about relinquishing the Panama Canal: 'We stole it fair and square and we should keep it!'" Hodel said. Dearen reported from San Francisco. He can be reached on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/JHDearen

WingedMonkey
08-06-2012, 10:23
When I hiked along the rim of the Hetch Hetchy, two things were in my mind. What a beautiful lake and WOW a whole Yosemite Valley is under all that. The imagination is endless (of course it usually is while hiking).

I doubt it will happen in my life time, but it could be the biggest job creator undertaken since the Hover Dam.

jburgasser
08-06-2012, 10:47
Water is too heavy to carry while hiking in its ready-to-drink-form. I only carry dehydrated water while hiking. Its way lighter!!

Ickybod

Lyle
08-06-2012, 11:03
Whenever I see people walking around drinking water from the Aquafina bottles, my opinion of them automatically drops a point or two. Both on their intelligence, and on their citizenship level. There is NO reason to drink exclusively bottled water like so many people do today. There is NOTHING wrong with tap water in this country. The waste in energy, resources, and money is undeniable.

I live in Michigan. We are blessed with plentiful supply of fresh water, however there are currently environmental concerns because of the millions and millions and millions of gallons of water that are being extracted each day from our lakes to feed this irrational "need". These companies pay nothing for depleting our resources and are making huge profits on it.

Along the same lines, if I go into a business as a paying customer and ask for a glass of water, or ask to re-fill a water bottle, and the business owner refuses, or points out that I can "buy" some bottled water, that will be the last time I am their customer. Forcing people to buy this necessary commodity, when it is plentiful and extremely cheap in this country is poor business, and extremely poor customer service, equivalent in my mind to pay toilets. I will not participate in this lunacy.

Have I ever bought bottled water? Occasionally one bottle, but then it gets re-filled when I need more. I buy it for the convenience of the bottle, not the water.

Namaste
08-06-2012, 11:19
I saw this stuff at Wegman's in PA called "BLK". It's bottled black water. I never tried it nor will I. Cost $1.29 for a 16 oz.(?) size.

http://blkbeverages.com/

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 12:40
Every time I hear a discussion on water, I think of the natural progression to privatizing the necessities of life. Food, then water, and eventually we're all like Mel Brooks in the movie Spaceballs popping open cans of Peri-air.

I actually got into an argument with a libertarian about how food, water, air, and even basic healthcare should be considered part of one's "right to life..." He attempted to argue to the contrary, that one does not have the right to have those essentials, only the unhindered (by government) right to pursue gaining them.

One of those face-palm moments where reason and ideology diverge.

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 13:12
Every time I hear a discussion on water, I think of the natural progression to privatizing the necessities of life. Food, then water, and eventually we're all like Mel Brooks in the movie Spaceballs popping open cans of Peri-air.

I actually got into an argument with a libertarian about how food, water, air, and even basic healthcare should be considered part of one's "right to life..." He attempted to argue to the contrary, that one does not have the right to have those essentials, only the unhindered (by government) right to pursue gaining them.

One of those face-palm moments where reason and ideology diverge.

so if the right to water goes beyond merely having the right to seek out water, does that mean i have the right to have someone bring water to me and give it to me free of charge? thats basically what you are saying. when i am out hiking and i free of charge collect stream water and purify it for drinking, i have successfully pursued and acquired water. i can not, however, stand in the middle of the woods and yell "i need water!!! its my right!!!' and have it miraculously appear for me.

or looked at another way, lets say in drought conditions two hikers out hiking. one has no water and the other has a very small amount that they have acquired for themselves. does the hiker with no water have a right to demand and/or take water from the hiker with water by force? are you in favor of a legal compulsion to force the hiker with water to give some to the one without under threat of criminal prosecution for failing to do so? do not any of these steps violate the "right to have water" of the hiker who has water? do you deny that the hiker who has the water has an ownership claim over that water?

and when you start talking about healthcare, now you are explicitly talking about a service one person provides to another. you want to force that arrangement against the will of the providers if necessary? what happens if doing so causes no one to want to be a doctor anymore? how then would anyone have a right to something there is no one to provide?

face palm indeed.

HikerMom58
08-06-2012, 13:33
Growing up in NH, I always enjoyed clean, pure water that seemed to be, in abundance, all around me. Now, I think a lot about water availablity and it's quality. I never want to take it for granted.

I hike with my daughter so I follow her rules in regards to water on the trail. She filters everything regardless of the source. We always tried to be aware of other hikers around us needing water , if the water source was scarce. I like water... cool thread.

chiefiepoo
08-06-2012, 13:35
To me, fresh, clean drinkable water is best enjoyed in high volume, as in

http://www.floridasprings.org/protecting/featured/ichetuckneesprings/

It's just a little off of I 75 north of gainesville. Stop by and see how 233 million GPD means a whole lot of fun.

HikerMom58
08-06-2012, 13:42
To me, fresh, clean drinkable water is best enjoyed in high volume, as in

http://www.floridasprings.org/protecting/featured/ichetuckneesprings/

It's just a little off of I 75 north of gainesville. Stop by and see how 233 million GPD means a whole lot of fun.

OMGOSH.... I LOVE that place in FL... we tubed there, had the best time... so wish I could be there, right NOW. :)

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 14:01
"Water Issues" always interest me, I'm not sure why. I'm always looking at various water laws, like the ones that prohibit rain barrels... There's a vote in the fall concerning the water supply of San Francisco. Will be interesting to watch. Here's a link: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21235901/yosemites-lost-valley-will-be-subject-vote?source=most_emailed


A pretty good book on the history of this issue: http://www.amazon.com/Dam-Politics-Preservation-Yosemite-National/dp/0375422315

Title: Dam! : water, power, politics, and preservation in Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite National Park
Author: Simpson, John W. (John Warfield)

Yosemite's lost valley will be subject of vote

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif.

—This fall San Franciscans will vote on a local measure with national implications: It could return to the American people a flooded gorge described as the twin of breathtaking Yosemite Valley.

Voters will decide whether they want a plan for draining the 117-billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, exposing for the first time in 80 years a glacially carved, granite-ringed valley of towering waterfalls 17 miles north of its more famous geologic sibling.

The November ballot measure asks: Should city officials devise a modern water plan that incorporates recycling and study expansion of other storage reservoirs to make up the loss?
The measure could eventually undo a controversial century-old decision by Congress that created the only reservoir in a national park and slaked the thirst of a city 190 miles away.

The battle over Hetch Hetchy, first waged unsuccessfully by naturalist John Muir, had turned the Sierra Club from an outdoors group into an environmental powerhouse. The fight gained momentum in recent years when unlikely allies joined forces. On one side are Republican lawmakers and environmentalists, including Ronald Reagan's former interior secretary, who want the dam removed and valley restored. On the other are Democratic San Franciscans, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, fighting to hold onto the city's famously pure drinking water in a drought-prone state.

"Eventually it will be broadly understood what an abomination a reservoir in a valley like Yosemite Valley really is," Donald Hodel, the former interior chief, told The Associated Press. "I think it will be hard to quell this idea (of restoration). It is like ideas of freedom in a totalitarian regime. Once planted they are impossible to repress forever."

Over the past decade, studies by the state and others have shown it's possible for San Francisco to continue collecting water from the Tuolumne River further downstream.

But the city never seriously has considered giving up its claim to the valley.

"This is a ridiculous idea," Mayor Ed Lee said. "It's a Trojan Horse for those that wish to have our public tricked into believing we have an adequate substitute for the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. We do not. There isn't any."

The gravity-fed system serves 7 percent of California's population, city water officials say. Turbines from its dams generate hydroelectric power for city buildings, streetlights and traffic signals, the airport and the transit system. And two-thirds of the water from the system is sold to neighboring municipalities.

All of this for just $30,000 a year. That was the rent set by Congress when it passed the Raker Act in 1913, giving San Francisco exclusive control and use of the Hetch Hetchy valley, despite opposition by 200 newspapers across the country and after a week of contentious debate.

For the next decade stands of black oaks that had shaded deer and bear along the Tuolumne River through the half-mile-wide valley were removed along with 6 million board feet of lumber used to build the dam. By 1923, water began flooding what once were lush meadows.

In recent years, politicians have argued that San Francisco is getting a bargain and that the rent should be increased. Others have said San Francisco is violating the Raker Act because the city's transmission lines stop 30 miles short of the city and that Pacific Gas & Electric profits by carrying it the rest of the way.

With opposition from then-Mayor Feinstein, Hodel brought the issue back to life in 1987 as a way of alleviating crowds and traffic in Yosemite Valley, which now sees 4 million visitors a year.

Most recently the George W. Bush administration tried funding a feasibility study, but it was quashed politically by Democrats when Pelosi was Speaker of the House.

"San Francisco is known as a progressive city in many ways, especially environmentally. But in water, it's just not the case. We've got a very sweet deal," said Spreck Rosekrans of
Restore Hetch Hetchy, who has studied the issue for 20 years. "Restoring the valley would undo the greatest wrong that has ever been done to a national park."

Studies by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the state Department of Water Resources and others show restoring the valley is technically feasible. The cost estimates range from $3 billion to $10 billion.

"On top of that staggering price tag, replacing the water supply is unrealistic when California already lacks infrastructure to provide enough water for its economy or environment," said Feinstein. "We should move past this debate and focus on real solutions to California's water challenges."

The opposing sides also dispute the impact of reservoir removal. The Hetch Hetchy group says the city would lose 20 percent of its 1.7 billion kilowatt power-generating capacity, roughly the amount of excess production sold at cost to the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts. The city says it would lose about twice that much, which would cost $41 million.

In addition, utilities officials say water rates would increase by up to $2,777 per household a year and the city would be vulnerable during droughts.

Mayor Lee and others argue that the timing is wrong to spend so much money on a project that ultimately could make Bay Area water deliveries less reliable.

Proponents say passage of the measure in November would give San Francisco a chance to plan for restoration on its own terms. Voters would decide in four years whether to move forward with the plan.

"The opposition to removal is akin to the famous expressions many years ago about relinquishing the Panama Canal: 'We stole it fair and square and we should keep it!'" Hodel said. Dearen reported from San Francisco. He can be reached on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/JHDearen


John, thanks for reporting, and bringing back to life a thread that asks some really tough questions......of us all. Honestly, do we have a rite to fresh drinking water and the removal of a Dam have such social and ecological impacts that are such huge complex topics, I don't think anyone here can answer without completely availing themselves, and who wants to do that, ( get kicked in the "HONK" ). I wish this was a Yes or No situation, but it's not, maybe it should be though......I got to think on this one.:-?

atmilkman
08-06-2012, 14:01
To me, fresh, clean drinkable water is best enjoyed in high volume, as in

http://www.floridasprings.org/protecting/featured/ichetuckneesprings/

It's just a little off of I 75 north of gainesville. Stop by and see how 233 million GPD means a whole lot of fun.
Some of the best fun I ever had. Some of the best scenery is discovered with a mask and snorkel. Definitely a must do before you kick.

Pedaling Fool
08-06-2012, 14:06
...two things were in my mind. What a beautiful lake and WOW a whole Yosemite Valley is under all that.
I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy_Valley


Damming

In 1906, after a major earthquake (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake), San Francisco applied to the United States Department of the Interior (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior) to gain water rights to Hetch Hetchy. This provoked a seven-year environmental (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Natural_environment) struggle with the environmental group Sierra Club (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Sierra_Club), led by John Muir (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/John_Muir). Muir observed:[4] (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/#cite_note-muir-3)

Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.


Proponents of the dam replied that the valley would be even more beautiful with a lake. Muir correctly predicted this lake would deposit an unsightly ring around its perimeter, which would inevitably be visible at low water.

Since the valley was within Yosemite National Park (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Yosemite_National_Park), an act of Congress (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/United_States_Congress) was needed to authorize the project. In 1913 the federal government passed the Raker Act (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Raker_Act), which permitted the flooding of the valley.

Construction of the dam was finished in 1923. Water from the dam now serves 2.4 million Californians in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties, as well as some communities in the San Joaquin Valley. It also generates electricity for San Francisco. Environmental groups (including the Sierra Club and Restore Hetch Hetchy (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Restore_Hetch_Hetchy)) still advocate removing the dam and restoring the valley to its former appearance.

Pedaling Fool
08-06-2012, 14:08
John, thanks for reporting, and bringing back to life a thread that asks some really tough questions......of us all. Honestly, do we have a rite to fresh drinking water and the removal of a Dam have such social and ecological impacts that are such huge complex topics, I don't think anyone here can answer without completely availing themselves, and who wants to do that, ( get kicked in the "HONK" ). I wish this was a Yes or No situation, but it's not, maybe it should be though......I got to think on this one.:-?No, it's not such a black and white issue...I'd like to elaborate, but my time is up (so says the computer), gotta go...At the library and I spent too much time elsewhere, see ya later...

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 14:22
No, it's not such a black and white issue...I'd like to elaborate, but my time is up (so says the computer), gotta go...At the library and I spent too much time elsewhere, see ya later...cool, look forward to it, thanks again, nice reporting.

G.G.
08-06-2012, 14:59
http://comedians.jokes.com/jim-gaffigan/videos/jim-gaffigan---bottled-water/

G.G.
08-06-2012, 15:00
http://comedians.jokes.com/jim-gaffigan/videos/jim-gaffigan---bottled-water/

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 15:21
http://comedians.jokes.com/jim-gaffigan/videos/jim-gaffigan---bottled-water/Ha Ha, your link didn't go through.....twice.....I hate when that happens, hehe :)

will check out though, I'm sure it's good.

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 15:28
http://comedians.jokes.com/jim-gaffigan/videos/jim-gaffigan---bottled-water/Oh yeah that's good,thanks for posting, it's more watery than water. And Mexican food....oh so true, and oh so good.

sbhikes
08-06-2012, 15:38
Beware the privatization of water. Poor people in Latin America have been fighting hard against it and sometimes they win. Meanwhile in the US municipalities are quietly selling their water facilities to private companies. The result of this is is not good.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 16:00
so if the right to water goes beyond merely having the right to seek out water, does that mean i have the right to have someone bring water to me and give it to me free of charge? thats basically what you are saying. when i am out hiking and i free of charge collect stream water and purify it for drinking, i have successfully pursued and acquired water. i can not, however, stand in the middle of the woods and yell "i need water!!! its my right!!!' and have it miraculously appear for me.

or looked at another way, lets say in drought conditions two hikers out hiking. one has no water and the other has a very small amount that they have acquired for themselves. does the hiker with no water have a right to demand and/or take water from the hiker with water by force? are you in favor of a legal compulsion to force the hiker with water to give some to the one without under threat of criminal prosecution for failing to do so? do not any of these steps violate the "right to have water" of the hiker who has water? do you deny that the hiker who has the water has an ownership claim over that water?

and when you start talking about healthcare, now you are explicitly talking about a service one person provides to another. you want to force that arrangement against the will of the providers if necessary? what happens if doing so causes no one to want to be a doctor anymore? how then would anyone have a right to something there is no one to provide?

face palm indeed.

Indeed, silly troll. Don't hurt yourself thinkin' too hard on making up nonsensical unrealistic talking points or twisting about what people say in order to fight them socialist commies. LOOK BEHIND YOU, IT'S THE GHOST OF STALIN!! No, I was mistaken, it is actually Reagan.

To clarify my point (yet again) for the simple minded, Right to life (not pursuit of a life) means others are not permitted to take your life, or in my argument deny those essentials required to sustain life (i.e. food, water, air, and IMO basic health care) if those essentials are in sufficient quantities for all to have.

I was speaking in reference to the U.S. Constitution (you've heard of it?) which I thought works under the concept of protecting the rights of all citizens from those who would seek to use influence and power to deny those essential rights for mindless profit and purposeful greed.

What fell under the umbrella of "right to life" was the premise of my argument, and I agree is subject to some debate. Reasonable access to food, clean water, and unpolluted air to sustain the right to life I would think is a no-brainer, but I stand corrected.

The mode of delivering those essentials was never in my discussion. Don't imply someone is a socialist just because they hint at the right to access basic healthcare in an discussion. It shows off your ignorance and tunnel vision.

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 16:27
Some of the best fun I ever had. Some of the best scenery is discovered with a mask and snorkel. Definitely a must do before you kick.
This was pretty fun, but I don't drink anymore...salt water either.;)

think Forrest Gump......."That's my plane" :D

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 16:47
Indeed, silly troll. Don't hurt yourself thinkin' too hard on making up nonsensical unrealistic talking points or twisting about what people say in order to fight them socialist commies. LOOK BEHIND YOU, IT'S THE GHOST OF STALIN!! No, I was mistaken, it is actually Reagan.

To clarify my point (yet again) for the simple minded, Right to life (not pursuit of a life) means others are not permitted to take your life, or in my argument deny those essentials required to sustain life (i.e. food, water, air, and IMO basic health care) if those essentials are in sufficient quantities for all to have.

I was speaking in reference to the U.S. Constitution (you've heard of it?) which I thought works under the concept of protecting the rights of all citizens from those who would seek to use influence and power to deny those essential rights for mindless profit and purposeful greed.

What fell under the umbrella of "right to life" was the premise of my argument, and I agree is subject to some debate. Reasonable access to food, clean water, and unpolluted air to sustain the right to life I would think is a no-brainer, but I stand corrected.

The mode of delivering those essentials was never in my discussion. Don't imply someone is a socialist just because they hint at the right to access basic healthcare in an discussion. It shows off your ignorance and tunnel vision.

i havent twisted a thing, i just take it to its logical conclusion and applied the concept universally which is something people of your viewpoint generally are unable to do. if you allow that there is such a thing as ownership of a resource, at what point does ownership become denying it to someone else vs providing it for yourself? and who has the right to deny such things? who will literally do the providing when someone is unable to do it for themselves? what will compel them to do so? just because you think its "right" doesnt make it "a right." theres a difference. i would gladly split my water with the hiker who doesnt have any, because i think doing so would be the right thing for me to do, not because i think the other hiker has a right to my water.

keeping it specifically about water, the interesting debate here is what it means to own something and how can water be owned beyond the literal notion of possessing it in a container... if a buy a lake lets say, did a buy onyl the water currently in the lake or do i now have rights to all the water that may ever end up in the lake. can someone upstream build a dam and block the flow of water into my lake? do i own the water that would end up there but isnt yet? this is an interesting argument. yours is not.

Pedaling Fool
08-06-2012, 17:01
cool, look forward to it, thanks again, nice reporting.Maybe later, I'll let these guys duke it out for a while :D

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 17:04
i havent twisted a thing, i just take it to its logical conclusion and applied the concept universally which is something people of your viewpoint generally are unable to do. if you allow that there is such a thing as ownership of a resource, at what point does ownership become denying it to someone else vs providing it for yourself? and who has the right to deny such things? who will literally do the providing when someone is unable to do it for themselves? what will compel them to do so? just because you think its "right" doesnt make it "a right." theres a difference. i would gladly split my water with the hiker who doesnt have any, because i think doing so would be the right thing for me to do, not because i think the other hiker has a right to my water.

keeping it specifically about water, the interesting debate here is what it means to own something and how can water be owned beyond the literal notion of possessing it in a container... if a buy a lake lets say, did a buy onyl the water currently in the lake or do i now have rights to all the water that may ever end up in the lake. can someone upstream build a dam and block the flow of water into my lake? do i own the water that would end up there but isnt yet? this is an interesting argument. yours is not.That's an interesting topic you bring up...water rights. that argument has gone on for a long time, and just the way you describe it, many a farm have damned the water that would flow to a competitor farm, often it was done in an attempt to destroy the cattle of someone you had a grudge with. Fences also caused the "Range Wars". I have no Idea how those situations turned out, but am sure some court somewhere ruled....still some good early american reading there.

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 17:05
Maybe later, I'll let these guys duke it out for a while :DYep, I got my popcorn, hehe

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 17:17
I was speaking in reference to the U.S. Constitution (you've heard of it?) which I thought works under the concept of protecting the rights of all citizens from those who would seek to use influence and power to deny those essential rights for mindless profit and purposeful greed.


or from the tyranny of those in governance who would seek to enforce their notion of what is right on the citizens it governs. like banning large soft drinks because they are bad for you. ownership, if you really think about what it means and where the right of ownership comes from in a civilized society, is certainly one of those essential rights you speak of.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 18:01
i havent twisted a thing, i just take it to its logical conclusion and applied the concept universally which is something people of your viewpoint generally are unable to do. if you allow that there is such a thing as ownership of a resource, at what point does ownership become denying it to someone else vs providing it for yourself? and who has the right to deny such things? who will literally do the providing when someone is unable to do it for themselves? what will compel them to do so? just because you think its "right" doesnt make it "a right." theres a difference. i would gladly split my water with the hiker who doesnt have any, because i think doing so would be the right thing for me to do, not because i think the other hiker has a right to my water.

keeping it specifically about water, the interesting debate here is what it means to own something and how can water be owned beyond the literal notion of possessing it in a container... if a buy a lake lets say, did a buy onyl the water currently in the lake or do i now have rights to all the water that may ever end up in the lake. can someone upstream build a dam and block the flow of water into my lake? do i own the water that would end up there but isnt yet? this is an interesting argument. yours is not.

So, using your method and going to the "logical conclusion" and if I have "applied the concept universally" (whatever that means), if I find a way to "own" all the food, water, and air, causing everone else to be deprived of their lives (cuz I obviously am not as nice as you), that is ok, because I didn't deny them attempting to get it, I just did it first. Makes perfect sense. Absolutely no reason to guard against that kind of behavior. What was I thinking.

Duh.

We aren't talking about gold, or oil, or some other resource that is basically irrelevant to sustaining human life. Simple equation. Life = food + water + air. Deny any of the three, and life is denied. Therefore, using substitution, denying life = denying right to life = denying water...etc. My point is the heart of it, all other arguements, such as transient ownership, should be derived and defined from that point. If it is derived from the point of view treating water as any other resource, it is flawed because it has taken humanity (and life) out of the equation.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 18:19
or from the tyranny of those in governance who would seek to enforce their notion of what is right on the citizens it governs. like banning large soft drinks because they are bad for you. ownership, if you really think about what it means and where the right of ownership comes from in a civilized society, is certainly one of those essential rights you speak of.

Right on que with the tyranny of government comment. Do you actually have any independant thought, or do you just read off notes you wrote down listening to Fox news?

That said, I mostly agree...wow shocker.

But preventing tyranny of government falls under amendments #1 & #2, and the necessity for an active citizenry to prevent othet citizens and outside influences from gaining power to the point where tyranny is present, which it is not. Go vist Somalia if you want to see what tyranny really looks like. What we have here is run if the mill corruption and hubris. Easily fixed if folks would get off their fat backsides (mine included) and be active rather than "act" active on forums and facebook.

Hairbear
08-06-2012, 18:28
polluted rivers-info.com

Hairbear
08-06-2012, 18:50
polluted rivers-info.com
water is not free it is caged by our need for convienence.

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 18:54
So, using your method and going to the "logical conclusion" and if I have "applied the concept universally" (whatever that means), if I find a way to "own" all the food, water, and air, causing everone else to be deprived of their lives (cuz I obviously am not as nice as you), that is ok, because I didn't deny them attempting to get it, I just did it first. Makes perfect sense. Absolutely no reason to guard against that kind of behavior. What was I thinking.

Duh.

We aren't talking about gold, or oil, or some other resource that is basically irrelevant to sustaining human life. Simple equation. Life = food + water + air. Deny any of the three, and life is denied. Therefore, using substitution, denying life = denying right to life = denying water...etc. My point is the heart of it, all other arguements, such as transient ownership, should be derived and defined from that point. If it is derived from the point of view treating water as any other resource, it is flawed because it has taken humanity (and life) out of the equation.

this can be boiled down to a simple question- do i have the right to hold in my hand an object and say "this is mine to do with as i please"? my answer to this question is an unequivocal and unconditional yes. if your answer is no and you back this up with how you live your life, you have my respect but not my agreement.

if, on the other hand, your answer is it depends on what it is or how much i am holding or who i am or what i plan on doing with it or what the needs of others are then you are simply seeking to maintain the right of ownership for some (presumably yourself among them) while denying it for others, and you feel you are somehow qualified as arbiter of who should have this right and who should be denied it. this is basically the mindset of all of today's politicians from all walks. its just a question of what specific possession we are referring to that differentiates them. that is a position i can not respect in the least.

back to water, if there is no right to possess water, then what is there to stop a person who is thirsty from forcibly taking my water from me? is that really the societal structure you want to see in place? if i have the right to say "no, this is my water" then all of us do. if one of us is denied that right, we are all denied it. you can not have it both ways.

the ONLY possible point of contention is the question of how i acquired the possession in the first place, namely, if i stole it from someone, essentially.

and yes, if someone were able to acquire all of the world's water in a lawful manner i fully support their right to do so. again, rights are not conditional. but in the case of water, as i was trying to point out, how exactly one goes about doing so is a huge point of contention and it would be very easy to argue that at least some of their acquisition would have to be done through taking from others improperly (the stuff does fall from the sky after all).

same thing with food. is the notion of owning all the world's corn crops really even remotely feasible? i dont think so, but if someone did pull it off, more power to them.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 20:56
this can be boiled down to a simple question- do i have the right to hold in my hand an object and say "this is mine to do with as i please"? my answer to this question is an unequivocal and unconditional yes. if your answer is no and you back this up with how you live your life, you have my respect but not my agreement.

if, on the other hand, your answer is it depends on what it is or how much i am holding or who i am or what i plan on doing with it or what the needs of others are then you are simply seeking to maintain the right of ownership for some (presumably yourself among them) while denying it for others, and you feel you are somehow qualified as arbiter of who should have this right and who should be denied it. this is basically the mindset of all of today's politicians from all walks. its just a question of what specific possession we are referring to that differentiates them. that is a position i can not respect in the least.

We can't debate this because you are working from a totally different frame of reference and philosophy. You are speaking from a world where objects have some ethereal intrinsic value that can be measured and weighed right along side human life. To you, it seems, people are only as valuable as the possessions they bear or acquire. You are either an accountant or a financier. I have no respect for you if life and possession are equal in your eyes.

If you can hold it in your hand, and it is what you need to live, then you have a right to it. If you have warehouses full of something, more than you will ever use in a lifetime and you are refusing to provide reasonable access to others who are dying because you have it all, then you forfeit your right to property because that is superseded by other's right to life. It's the right to life, [emphasis comma] liberty, not the other way around. I don't know how much clearer they could have made it. That is the society and social structure I live in. I don't know where you are at.


back to water, if there is no right to possess water, then what is there to stop a person who is thirsty from forcibly taking my water from me? is that really the societal structure you want to see in place? if i have the right to say "no, this is my water" then all of us do. if one of us is denied that right, we are all denied it. you can not have it both ways.

the ONLY possible point of contention is the question of how i acquired the possession in the first place, namely, if i stole it from someone, essentially.

Did I not say right to life includes right to access (and thus transiently possess) water by its very definition? What is not clear about that? What I did not say, and you are putting words into my mouth, is that the right precludes following all the other established and agreed upon laws that define the mechanisms of a society, grown from and adhering to the base civil rights provided for in the Constitution. Your examples are portrayed in the vacuum of a lawless world where survival of the fittest reigns. That is not where I live. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not have the right to shoot someone just because I think they are a terrorist, nor does someone have the right to take your water just because they are a bit parched. That's ridiculous.

When someone hoards an essential resource that is required for the life of others in order to gain power over them and limit liberty by threatening life and livelihood, that is tyranny and that forfeits their right to possession. It would be no different if the government suddenly closed all the public lands for some lame excuse as national security. I would expect people to stand up and prevent it.

Denying a thirsty person access when you have plenty, for whatever reason, is more reprehensible than stealing, which is the judgement call they will be making when they hit you over the head for your water, and they will pay for the consequences of their actions.


and yes, if someone were able to acquire all of the world's water in a lawful manner i fully support their right to do so. again, rights are not conditional. but in the case of water, as i was trying to point out, how exactly one goes about doing so is a huge point of contention and it would be very easy to argue that at least some of their acquisition would have to be done through taking from others improperly (the stuff does fall from the sky after all).

same thing with food. is the notion of owning all the world's corn crops really even remotely feasible? i dont think so, but if someone did pull it off, more power to them.


Ok Dr. Evel. I will leave you to your world domination plans. I have to get back to designing my machine to slowly suck the moisture from the air and store it in an underground cistern to sell back to everyone when global climate change turns everything to dust. Muahahaha!!

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 21:06
We can't debate this because you are working from a totally different frame of reference and philosophy. You are speaking from a world where objects have some ethereal intrinsic value that can be measured and weighed right along side human life. To you, it seems, people are only as valuable as the possessions they bear or acquire. You are either an accountant or a financier. I have no respect for you if life and possession are equal in your eyes.

If you can hold it in your hand, and it is what you need to live, then you have a right to it. If you have warehouses full of something, more than you will ever use in a lifetime and you are refusing to provide reasonable access to others who are dying because you have it all, then you forfeit your right to property because that is superseded by other's right to life. It's the right to life, [emphasis comma] liberty, not the other way around. I don't know how much clearer they could have made it. That is the society and social structure I live in. I don't know where you are at.



Did I not say right to life includes right to access (and thus transiently possess) water by its very definition? What is not clear about that? What I did not say, and you are putting words into my mouth, is that the right precludes following all the other established and agreed upon laws that define the mechanisms of a society, grown from and adhering to the base civil rights provided for in the Constitution. Your examples are portrayed in the vacuum of a lawless world where survival of the fittest reigns. That is not where I live. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not have the right to shoot someone just because I think they are a terrorist, nor does someone have the right to take your water just because they are a bit parched. That's ridiculous.

When someone hoards an essential resource that is required for the life of others in order to gain power over them and limit liberty by threatening life and livelihood, that is tyranny and that forfeits their right to possession. It would be no different if the government suddenly closed all the public lands for some lame excuse as national security. I would expect people to stand up and prevent it.

Denying a thirsty person access when you have plenty, for whatever reason, is more reprehensible than stealing, which is the judgement call they will be making when they hit you over the head for your water, and they will pay for the consequences of their actions.




Ok Dr. Evel. I will leave you to your world domination plans. I have to get back to designing my machine to slowly suck the moisture from the air and store it in an underground cistern to sell back to everyone when global climate change turns everything to dust. Muahahaha!!


as i said, you seek to put conditions on rights. lets change the subject to freedom of speech. does freedom of speech only apply when some anointed arbiters deem the speech worthy of being free? that is not freedom. if even one person is denied the right to speak as they wish we are all denied it. the same is true of right of ownership, not use over material goods but of our lives and bodies. either we are all free to own all that we rightfully we acquire or none of us are free to own anything, for the simple fact that none among us is worthy of deciding who and under what circumstances the right should apply or not apply. you have your opinion and you are entitled to them, and morally i agree with them. that does not make them law that everyone must follow.

me? a financier or accountant? thats funny. keep guessing.

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 21:08
We can't debate this because you are working from a totally different frame of reference and philosophy. You are speaking from a world where objects have some ethereal intrinsic value that can be measured and weighed right along side human life.


objects are life. think about the process from which you go from not having any object of your choosing to having it. removing the middle steps we all trade our lives for objects. the saying "time is money" is the absolute truth.

fredmugs
08-06-2012, 21:24
With a 17 year old daughter at home who takes 30 minute showers I can confirm that water is not free.

Hairbear
08-06-2012, 21:28
[QUOTE=tdoczi;1320989]objects are life. think about the process from which you go from not having any object of your choosing to having it. removing the middle steps we all trade our lives for objects. the saying "time is money" is the absolute truth.[/QUOTE in your opinion would the reverse be possible .do you think if we gave up our objects would we get our lives back?

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 21:35
[QUOTE=tdoczi;1320989]objects are life. think about the process from which you go from not having any object of your choosing to having it. removing the middle steps we all trade our lives for objects. the saying "time is money" is the absolute truth.[/QUOTE in your opinion would the reverse be possible .do you think if we gave up our objects would we get our lives back?

if the objects are of value, yes, very much so. if i own something that is worth $50K, which is equivalent to a year's salary, then by selling it for $50K that is in effect one less year i have to work. do i literally get more time as in longer life? no, but the burden of how much of my life i have to sell (i.e., spend working for money) is decreased.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 21:41
as i said, you seek to put conditions on rights. lets change the subject to freedom of speech. does freedom of speech only apply when some anointed arbiters deem the speech worthy of being free? that is not freedom. if even one person is denied the right to speak as they wish we are all denied it. the same is true of right of ownership, not use over material goods but of our lives and bodies. either we are all free to own all that we rightfully we acquire or none of us are free to own anything, for the simple fact that none among us is worthy of deciding who and under what circumstances the right should apply or not apply. you have your opinion and you are entitled to them, and morally i agree with them. that does not make them law that everyone must follow.

me? a financier or accountant? thats funny. keep guessing.

You are mistaking the act of defining the bounds of an inherent right for describing the conditions and circumstances under which that right is valid, and determining precedence of one right over another under a specific set of circumstances as denial of said rights under all circumstances.

I am not a judge (aka "anointed arbiter") so I have not been granted the authority to make decision on application of law relative to constitutional rights. The judges are the ones who do their best to put reasonable sensible conditions on those inherent rights (like taking responsibility for expressing 1st amendment rights by falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) without treading on the base nature of those rights, knowing full well the citizenry are (or at least should be) watching.

If you can say right to material possession trumps right to life unconditionally with a clear conscience, then I am very worried.

My next guess would be... rodeo clown?

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 21:53
You are mistaking the act of defining the bounds of an inherent right for describing the conditions and circumstances under which that right is valid, and determining precedence of one right over another under a specific set of circumstances as denial of said rights under all circumstances.

I am not a judge (aka "anointed arbiter") so I have not been granted the authority to make decision on application of law relative to constitutional rights. The judges are the ones who do their best to put reasonable sensible conditions on those inherent rights (like taking responsibility for expressing 1st amendment rights by falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) without treading on the base nature of those rights, knowing full well the citizenry are (or at least should be) watching.

If you can say right to material possession trumps right to life unconditionally with a clear conscience, then I am very worried.

My next guess would be... rodeo clown?

material possession and life are one in the same, or at least closely related.

thankfully you are correct that you are not an anointed arbiter, and fortunately the ones who think they are haven't created some mythical "right to water" as of yet.

keep hurling insults, it really bolsters your point nicely.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 22:15
material possession and life are one in the same, or at least closely related.

thankfully you are correct that you are not an anointed arbiter, and fortunately the ones who think they are haven't created some mythical "right to water" as of yet.

keep hurling insults, it really bolsters your point nicely.


I think you need to revisit (or learn for that matter) the points of critical thinking and stop reading Atlas Shrugged.

Your lack of sound reasoning and ignoring reality in general defeats your point, so I figured I would help and level the playing field a bit, but then I didn't hurl the first jab. If you took my libertarian comment personally, that is on you, as is what followed.

I would prefer intelligent discourse, but I haven't found it with you yet. There were moments...but they passed quickly.

You make a statement that reinforces my argument, then say something contradictory, smug, and ignorant.

Saying the right to water is mythical shows you are rejecting the concept of right to life (of others at least), and thus shows your true nature, and I don't like you. You don't pay attention, you aren't making valid counterpoints, and you insist on creating examples that do not fit in a real world context.

I think that is the definition of troll...

...and I am troll bait.

Duh.

pervy_sage
08-06-2012, 22:31
Before quiting for the night, I wish to offer my sincere apologies for my behavior. I used rodeo clowns in a derogatory context, which is totally unfair to those hard working brave induviduals who actually I respect. Shame on me.

tdoczi
08-06-2012, 22:42
I think you need to revisit (or learn for that matter) the points of critical thinking and stop reading Atlas Shrugged.

Your lack of sound reasoning and ignoring reality in general defeats your point, so I figured I would help and level the playing field a bit, but then I didn't hurl the first jab. If you took my libertarian comment personally, that is on you, as is what followed.

I would prefer intelligent discourse, but I haven't found it with you yet. There were moments...but they passed quickly.

You make a statement that reinforces my argument, then say something contradictory, smug, and ignorant.

Saying the right to water is mythical shows you are rejecting the concept of right to life (of others at least), and thus shows your true nature, and I don't like you. You don't pay attention, you aren't making valid counterpoints, and you insist on creating examples that do not fit in a real world context.

I think that is the definition of troll...

...and I am troll bait.

Duh.

since you like discussing the right to life, lets try it like this.

lets say i work for 10 years in order to save money to earn some material possession. what that possession is is irrelevant, its what i chose to work for. after my 10 years of work i earn whatever that item is. lets say this item is something someone else is able to argue that they need "to live." you seem to think this gives them the right to take it from me simply for the fact that they need it and they have a right to life, but what you fail to realize is that since my acquisition of this item required the devotion of part of my life, they are not taking an object from me, they are taking from me the 10 years i devoted to earning it, which no one has any right what so ever to do, for any reason. sorry.

its not about material possession at all.

rocketsocks
08-06-2012, 22:51
Before quiting for the night, I wish to offer my sincere apologies for my behavior. I used rodeo clowns in a derogatory context, which is totally unfair to those hard working brave induviduals who actually I respect. Shame on me.


since you like discussing the right to life, lets try it like this.

lets say i work for 10 years in order to save money to earn some material possession. what that possession is is irrelevant, its what i chose to work for. after my 10 years of work i earn whatever that item is. lets say this item is something someone else is able to argue that they need "to live." you seem to think this gives them the right to take it from me simply for the fact that they need it and they have a right to life, but what you fail to realize is that since my acquisition of this item required the devotion of part of my life, they are not taking an object from me, they are taking from me the 10 years i devoted to earning it, which no one has any right what so ever to do, for any reason. sorry.

its not about material possession at all.

Well boys, I for one have enjoyed the banter back and forth, you both bring some interesting points. I am reminded of something I heard...

"Often the most valuable piece of real estate we'll every own and fight for, is under our own two feet" :)

pervy_sage
08-07-2012, 07:01
Well boys, I for one have enjoyed the banter back and forth, you both bring some interesting points. I am reminded of something I heard...

"Often the most valuable piece of real estate we'll every own and fight for, is under our own two feet" :)


That about sums it up. Why didn't you just say that from the beginning?

I swear if you start a thread on "what is quality" I will explode.

rocketsocks
08-07-2012, 10:22
That about sums it up. Why didn't you just say that from the beginning?

I swear if you start a thread on "what is quality" I will explode.Oh please don't explode, we need good threads that can offset all the potty talk. Ya know you guys were at it for like 8 hours....Nice!...it's all good.:)

pervy_sage
08-07-2012, 11:29
Oh please don't explode, we need good threads that can offset all the potty talk. Ya know you guys were at it for like 8 hours....Nice!...it's all good.:)

I had to stop when my BP hit 150/90. My wife doesn't like finding me slumped unconscious over the computer.

Water Rat
08-07-2012, 11:31
I had to stop when my BP hit 150/90. My wife doesn't like finding me slumped unconscious over the computer.

No... That is never a good thing! :)

Pedaling Fool
08-09-2012, 22:31
Sucking the planet dry :sun http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/08/158417396/heres-where-farms-are-sucking-the-planet-dry

moytoy
08-10-2012, 04:25
Thats an interesting map JG. After looking it over I decided to do more searching and found this one to be interesting also. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html

I think one could draw the conclusion that in the big picture water is not free. Although my well water is free to me as long as I'm willing to use a hand pump.

DavidNH
08-10-2012, 09:15
if the water is out of the tap its free. period. If it's bottled water.. you pay through the nose. Yes tap water at a restaurant should be free and generally is. it's already paid for!

WingedMonkey
08-10-2012, 09:16
Although my well water is free to me as long as I'm willing to use a hand pump.

I was thinking toward the same thing about my well water, that it was free other than the electric to draw it.

Then I got to looking at my tax bill.

I pay the South Florida Water Management District three different taxes, one to the general fund, one for basin management and one for Everglades construction.

I pay another tax to the Lake Worth Drainage District, that builds and maintains the canals that deliver the ground water to my well.

And I'm sure some of my county tax goes toward protecting local wetlands, which also effect ground water.

So even just taking it out of the ground with a hand pump...it ain't free.

:sun

fiddlehead
08-10-2012, 10:05
Read the 1st page and this 4th (last page ) only.
So, don't know if this was brought up but: What about rainwater?
Most Thai people (at least in northern Thailand) collect rainwater for all of their water.
When I first met my wife, her mother used to stand out in the rain with a rusty old piece of metal roofing and direct the heavy rains into a large container.
After I saw that, I put raingutters up the next day.
I bought her 6 big containers and ran raingutters into each.
OK, it cost me $50 but they won't be out of water until the containers break (easy enough to make another), or a huge drought.
Yet, they still fill the kitchen counter with full plastic (empty soda) bottles.
I guess once you run out, it become so much more important.

At my house in the states, I needed a new well and waited till 2 years ago when it cost me $8,000
When I bought my house, I could have had one put in for $2,000.
I left it run 3 days straight to get it clear when it first put in.
It was a good test and didn't run dry.

Much of the world collects rainwater.
So, to answer the original question: Yes, it can be free.

by the way, I live due east of a thousand miles of ocean so, our air is pretty clean. We are not in a fly zone and rarely see airplanes.

One more "by the way" I remember about 10 years ago when Poland Spring water got sued up in Maine because their water was tested and dirtier than tap water.
They settled out of court somehow (for 12 million bucks) and part of the deal was that they couldn't be sued again and could continue to call it "spring water"
What ever happened to truth in advertising?

Pedaling Fool
08-10-2012, 10:16
if the water is out of the tap its free. period. Yes tap water at a restaurant should be free and generally is. it's already paid for!
It's already paid for, therefore it's free :-?

Pedaling Fool
08-10-2012, 10:19
Much of the world collects rainwater.
So, to answer the original question: Yes, it can be free.

This is what really interests me about water, but I don't have an opinion yet, still thinking about it. http://www.riseearth.com/2012/06/collecting-rainwater-now-illegal-in.html

fiddlehead
08-10-2012, 10:28
That's amazing (saying collecting rainwater is illegal)
America (land of the free) continues to amaze me.
I can see it now, I'm hiking the CDT in Colorado and getting busted for my cup catching runoff from my tarp so I can have that second cup of tea.
I'll be like Arlo Guthrie in Alices Restaurant when I go to jail and they ask me: "What'd you get"?

pervy_sage
08-10-2012, 12:46
That's amazing (saying collecting rainwater is illegal)
America (land of the free) continues to amaze me.
I can see it now, I'm hiking the CDT in Colorado and getting busted for my cup catching runoff from my tarp so I can have that second cup of tea.
I'll be like Arlo Guthrie in Alices Restaurant when I go to jail and they ask me: "What'd you get"?

Let me take a moment to fasten on my blood pressure cuff...just in case.

I would hope everyone realizes that within any organized human collective where everyone is intended to share equal rights and liberties, a balance needs to be maintained between the individual and the collective. No one individual within the collective should be permitted to acquire sufficient resources (equating to power and influence) to the point where it treads upon the rights of others within the collective. Nor, as my rival from previous posts has noted, should any individual be permitted to take resources from another without due compensation or due process of law. Conversely, the machinations of the collective should not be permitted to wholly remove or unduly impair the civil liberties of the individual or seize property without due process of law and or due compensation (5th amendment btw).

It is the responsibility of the citizen to protect their own rights within the collective against unscrupulous individuals, and ensure those appointed to governance uphold the laws of the collective and prevent the amoral workings of said collective from crushing the rights of the individual like a locomotive with no engineer.

Ideally the citizenry would do this peacefully and with reasonable discourse, voting and whatever judicial avenues are appropriate. But since we are human and haven't evolved passed being primarily driven by misplaced impulses and emotions stemming from fear, anxiety, paranoia, desire, etc, we have what we have.

The comment I quoted leans to that sense of impulse. Do folks honestly believe we are destined for rainwater police breaking down doors to confiscate the five gallon pale on your patio? If we have gotten to that point, then it means we ignored the dire signs of resource depletion leading up to that point and effectively did nothing as a society. Can't imagine us doing anything like that.

The laws on the books regarding rainwater collection, made prior to modern water systems, may have had genuine merit at the time, otherwise the community would not have permitted them to be passed (assuming they all were active within there community, otherwise tough *****). If the reasons for said laws are no longer valid, then the community should work to change or modify those laws to solve the problem at hand while maintaining the integrity of all those civil liberties we like.

Simple, right?

Pedaling Fool
08-10-2012, 14:59
Let me take a moment to fasten on my blood pressure cuff...just in case.

I would hope everyone realizes that within any organized human collective where everyone is intended to share equal rights and liberties, a balance needs to be maintained between the individual and the collective. No one individual within the collective should be permitted to acquire sufficient resources (equating to power and influence) to the point where it treads upon the rights of others within the collective. Nor, as my rival from previous posts has noted, should any individual be permitted to take resources from another without due compensation or due process of law. Conversely, the machinations of the collective should not be permitted to wholly remove or unduly impair the civil liberties of the individual or seize property without due process of law and or due compensation (5th amendment btw).

It is the responsibility of the citizen to protect their own rights within the collective against unscrupulous individuals, and ensure those appointed to governance uphold the laws of the collective and prevent the amoral workings of said collective from crushing the rights of the individual like a locomotive with no engineer.

Ideally the citizenry would do this peacefully and with reasonable discourse, voting and whatever judicial avenues are appropriate. But since we are human and haven't evolved passed being primarily driven by misplaced impulses and emotions stemming from fear, anxiety, paranoia, desire, etc, we have what we have.

The comment I quoted leans to that sense of impulse. Do folks honestly believe we are destined for rainwater police breaking down doors to confiscate the five gallon pale on your patio? If we have gotten to that point, then it means we ignored the dire signs of resource depletion leading up to that point and effectively did nothing as a society. Can't imagine us doing anything like that.

The laws on the books regarding rainwater collection, made prior to modern water systems, may have had genuine merit at the time, otherwise the community would not have permitted them to be passed (assuming they all were active within there community, otherwise tough *****). If the reasons for said laws are no longer valid, then the community should work to change or modify those laws to solve the problem at hand while maintaining the integrity of all those civil liberties we like.

Simple, right?
I tend to agree with you on this point. I'm not really familar with these laws, since I've never lived in a state with such laws, but I believe that's because we generally don't have water issues like those areas with these water laws.

We do, however, have the typical water usage laws, the ones that restrict lawn watering to certain hours and days of the week. It's amazing to me how many people start ranting about their "rights" in this respect :rolleyes:

When there is a resource that is limited, there must be laws to govern the use of those resources and these laws will vary from location to location, depending on availability.

You do NOT have a RIGHT to use unlimited amounts of water, period. So, while I don't really have an in-depth understanding of these rain barrel laws, I generally give the benefit of the doubt to the government on this issue.

pervy_sage
08-10-2012, 17:42
This thread reminds me of a Simpson's episode where, faced with decreased electric usage, Mr. Burns devises a plan to increase demand. He does this by erecting a giant sun shield on the top of a mountain, effectively blocking the sun to the entire town and forcing everyone to turn on their lights.

If we follow the logic of SOME people, he has every right, and has effectively taken posession of the sunlight that crosses his property.

As absurd as this sounds, there have actually been legal battles that essentially are about "light" or really sight when people (usually rich people) have their pretty view blocked by someone elses taller mansion, or by some public building that they don't care to look at.

With the rain barrel thing, I imagine it has to do with allowing the natural replenishment of the local watershed. If everyone (everyone with the means that is) were to store/hoard water, then the local water supply, as well as the ecosystem, would suffer.

Valid or not, it is up to the community to decide, with the size of the community involvement being proportionate to the area affected.

atraildreamer
08-11-2012, 11:37
With the rain barrel thing, I imagine it has to do with allowing the natural replenishment of the local watershed. If everyone (everyone with the means that is) were to store/hoard water, then the local water supply, as well as the ecosystem, would suffer.


Perhaps they are looking at this from the wrong direction. If every home and business had an underground cistern designed to capture the rainfall that hits the roof of a typical home or commercial building, then that water could be used to flush toilets, doing the laundry, water the lawn, gardens, etc. Taking a burden off of the water utilities so that they could focus on clean water for human consumption. These cisterns could be viewed as an extension of the reservoirs in use by the municipality. As the cisterns were being phased in, there would be a greater demand on the existing reservoirs, but, as the cisterns were topped off, the excess would be drained off into the ground, or sewer system, eventually to be recycled by the natural water cycle. In a sense, the water would be hoarded, but it would be in continuous use by the household, or business.

It has been estimated that half of the rainfall that falls on Los Angeles drains into the sea. If that water could be captured using home-based cisterns and utilized as described above, would there be a water shortage in southern California? :confused:

rocketsocks
08-11-2012, 11:59
Perhaps they are looking at this from the wrong direction. If every home and business had an underground cistern designed to capture the rainfall that hits the roof of a typical home or commercial building, then that water could be used to flush toilets, doing the laundry, water the lawn, gardens, etc. Taking a burden off of the water utilities so that they could focus on clean water for human consumption. These cisterns could be viewed as an extension of the reservoirs in use by the municipality. Asn the cisterns were being phased in, there would be there would be a greater demand on the existing reservoirs, but, as the cisterns were topped off, the excess would be drained off into the ground, or sewer system, eventually to be recycled by the natural water cycle. In a sense, the water would be hoarded, but it would be in continuous use by the household, or business.

It has been estimated that half of the rainfall that falls on Los Angeles drains into the sea. If that water could be captured using home-based cisterns and utilized as described above, would there be a water shortage in southern California? :confused:I hear ya, great ideas there. However one of the problems with an open system like that is it's difficulty regulating who collects, how they collect, where they collect,and with water borne illnesses posing a real threat, and cross contamination to the public water system, it's just so much easier to say, No, you can not collect in rain barrels.....though I don't have any knowledge of these exiting laws that I'm sure differ from lo-cal to lo-cal.

Sailing_Faith
08-11-2012, 12:11
I hear ya, great ideas there. However one of the problems with an open system like that is it's difficulty regulating who collects, how they collect, where they collect,.....

It seems to me the issue is the idea that anyone would have authority to regulate personal behavior so basic. Many of our conversations about the merits of treating and filtering water on the trail would be very different if an outside entity took it upon themselves to try to impose their will on us as individual hikers.

Don H
08-11-2012, 12:13
Is water free? Ask "Joe to Go" at Culver Gap, NJ ;)

rocketsocks
08-11-2012, 12:25
It seems to me the issue is the idea that anyone would have authority to regulate personal behavior so basic. Many of our conversations about the merits of treating and filtering water on the trail would be very different if an outside entity took it upon themselves to try to impose their will on us as individual hikers.Yes indeed that would be futile. I have seen certain chemical additive for filtering water, that can not be sold in certain States, I can only assume this is an attempt to regulate any potential problems with cross contamination the the public systems.

Pedaling Fool
08-11-2012, 16:02
Perhaps they are looking at this from the wrong direction. If every home and business had an underground cistern designed to capture the rainfall that hits the roof of a typical home or commercial building, then that water could be used to flush toilets, doing the laundry, water the lawn, gardens, etc. Taking a burden off of the water utilities so that they could focus on clean water for human consumption. These cisterns could be viewed as an extension of the reservoirs in use by the municipality. Asn the cisterns were being phased in, there would be there would be a greater demand on the existing reservoirs, but, as the cisterns were topped off, the excess would be drained off into the ground, or sewer system, eventually to be recycled by the natural water cycle. In a sense, the water would be hoarded, but it would be in continuous use by the household, or business.
It has been estimated that half of the rainfall that falls on Los Angeles drains into the sea. If that water could be captured using home-based cisterns and utilized as described above, would there be a water shortage in southern California? :confused:
This kind of addresses my questions about this issue. I understand that the laws are allegedly to maintain the communities water supply. But what really gets me intrigued is the question: So how much water can one catch vs. what one cannot catch? On one level it doesn't seem like it would make any difference whatsoever, but then again, I think these laws are in areas with many water-quantity issues, so that's why I give the benefit of doubt to the laws; I just find it difficult to believe an area would pass such laws if it were not an issue. I haven't been able to find anything yet that addresses these questions with any real specificity.


It seems to me the issue is the idea that anyone would have authority to regulate personal behavior so basic. Many of our conversations about the merits of treating and filtering water on the trail would be very different if an outside entity took it upon themselves to try to impose their will on us as individual hikers.I really don't see this as a slippery slope issue; I'm sure we'll all be able to get some water on the AT.

Altarboy
08-11-2012, 18:36
We have well water. It's very hard, but so far it checks clean. If folks aren't storing a little clean watter or ways of filtering it, they should.
I knew a family who lived down the road from my aunt. The dad worked on trucks for a living and had a pit in the back yard where he would drain oil into the gravel bottom. They had well water and it tasted like oil and their dishes always had an oily film. This was in the sixties and early seventies. I still think about them and wonder about the long term health issues the must have had.

atraildreamer
08-12-2012, 14:43
So how much water can one catch vs. what one cannot catch? On one level it doesn't seem like it would make any difference whatsoever, but then again, I think these laws are in areas with many water-quantity issues,...

From: http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/08/25/just-how-much-rainwater-can-you-collect-off-your-roof/

"...Let’s take a look at a hypothetical example to see just how much water we can collect from rainfall. If you have 1,000 square feet of roof on your house, and it rains just 1 inch, you can collect 600 gallons of water to be used in your garden, for washing your car, or just for drop irrigation around your property. That’s 600 less gallons you have to pay for and use from your town water supply! So how can you do the math for your own roof? Just multiple the square footage of roof space you have available X 0.6 gallons per square foot per inch of rain, and you can see how much water you can collect from each inch of rain that falls.

So if you have 2,500 square feet of roof available for water catchment, and a single inch of rain falls one day, we see that:

2,500 X 0.6 = 1,500 gallons of water can be harvested for future use…from only one inch of rainfall!


On average, Americans use about 69 gallons of water per person per day (http://www.h2oconserve.org/index.php?page_id=7&pd=household) for bathing, cooking, cleaning and flushing toilets – and is just for indoor water use and does not account for any watering/car washing going on outside. That amounts to about 2,100 gallons a month for each person – or only slightly more than you might be able to collect off your roof in a single rainstorm. Sure, you might not want to use that water for your showers or drinking water, but it can be done…and many people are putting cisterns in their yard and systems in their house to be able to do so. But if you are not interested in doing that and just wanted to use it outside, using a rain barrel (http://thegoodhuman.com/resources/rainbarrel.php) or two under your downspouts can make a big difference in your monthly water usage and bill. Let’s take a look at one more example to see how much of a difference collecting rainwater can make – If you live in Boston, Massachusetts, which gets an average of 42.53 inches of rain per year (http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Massachusetts/Boston/), and you live in a house with 1,000 square feet of roof space…

1,000 X 0.6 X 42.53 = 25,518 gallons of water collected each year in Boston, MA.



That’s a lot of water that you can save (and money!) by hooking up and using rainwater catchment systems at your house. It’s a big return for a very small investment, and I bet you will hear something different the next time the weatherperson says “X city received an inch of rain today”!"

Maybe it is not a matter of how much water is captured, but rather the municipalities are more worried about losing $$$ from the sale of water? :confused: :-?

Another Kevin
08-12-2012, 15:04
The cases surrounding collecting rainwater on people's own property are ... complicated.

In a fair number of them, it can be traced that a previous landowner sold the rights to the water. If someone already paid for the landowner not to collect rainwater, then what do they have for their money if the landowner (or someone else who bought the land afterward) starts collecting it? Or in some cases the original private landowner bought from the government, and the government did the sale with the condition that the water rights were not included. Presumably the original purchaser went into the deal with eyes open.

Now, if the government is coming back and taking water rights that were never negotiated, I think the landowner has a Fifth Amendment case for taking of private property for public use without compensation. But if the water rights were sold, or excluded from a sale, then where's the real complaint?

Disclaimer: I live in a part of the world that, most years, has more problems with too much water than with too little. We're in a catastrophically dry summer this year, but in most years floods are a bigger problem than droughts.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 16:08
From: http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/08/25/just-how-much-rainwater-can-you-collect-off-your-roof/

"...Let’s take a look at a hypothetical example to see just how much water we can collect from rainfall. If you have 1,000 square feet of roof on your house, and it rains just 1 inch, you can collect 600 gallons of water to be used in your garden, for washing your car, or just for drop irrigation around your property. That’s 600 less gallons you have to pay for and use from your town water supply! So how can you do the math for your own roof? Just multiple the square footage of roof space you have available X 0.6 gallons per square foot per inch of rain, and you can see how much water you can collect from each inch of rain that falls.

So if you have 2,500 square feet of roof available for water catchment, and a single inch of rain falls one day, we see that:

2,500 X 0.6 = 1,500 gallons of water can be harvested for future use…from only one inch of rainfall!


On average, Americans use about 69 gallons of water per person per day (http://www.h2oconserve.org/index.php?page_id=7&pd=household) for bathing, cooking, cleaning and flushing toilets – and is just for indoor water use and does not account for any watering/car washing going on outside. That amounts to about 2,100 gallons a month for each person – or only slightly more than you might be able to collect off your roof in a single rainstorm. Sure, you might not want to use that water for your showers or drinking water, but it can be done…and many people are putting cisterns in their yard and systems in their house to be able to do so. But if you are not interested in doing that and just wanted to use it outside, using a rain barrel (http://thegoodhuman.com/resources/rainbarrel.php) or two under your downspouts can make a big difference in your monthly water usage and bill. Let’s take a look at one more example to see how much of a difference collecting rainwater can make – If you live in Boston, Massachusetts, which gets an average of 42.53 inches of rain per year (http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Massachusetts/Boston/), and you live in a house with 1,000 square feet of roof space…

1,000 X 0.6 X 42.53 = 25,518 gallons of water collected each year in Boston, MA.



That’s a lot of water that you can save (and money!) by hooking up and using rainwater catchment systems at your house. It’s a big return for a very small investment, and I bet you will hear something different the next time the weatherperson says “X city received an inch of rain today”!"

Maybe it is not a matter of how much water is captured, but rather the municipalities are more worried about losing $$$ from the sale of water? :confused: :-?Thanks that's interesting and I've seen it before on a gardening website. In my area you can be listed in the paper for using too much water, that's the problem here, so anyone that collects rain is seen as a good thing, it's reducing use that's the focus around here.

Looking at those numbers kind of makes you realize just how much water falls during a rainfall. I don't collect rainwater, but been thinking about setting something up. For now I recycle water in my sink and that's a significant amount and I actually have reduced my waterbill quite a bit just doing that, but there's other things I can do. Here are some: http://wateruseitwisely.com/100-ways-to-conserve/

As for rain, I actually do collect it, well kind of. I've mulched over well over 50% of my yard and still mulching more (Just did another section yesterday). This mulching transforms my sandy soil into a highly orgainic soil that soaks up and hold water. It does not drain away, like it does in sandy soil, rather it's consumed by the plant, animal and micro life. So that way I save tons of money/water, by not needing to water my plants. I was growing produce in the middle of a severe drought earlier this year and my tree was showing growth despite the drought, when all other trees were looking pretty shabby.

Here's an example of what just a little organic matter in the soil will do:


Conserving Water Supply

The percentage of organic content directly relates to water-holding capacity in soil. Soil scientists report that for every 1% of organic matter content, the soil can hold 16,500 gallons of plant available water per acre of soil to one foot deep. (source: ATTRA) That is roughly 1.5 quarts of water per cubic-foot of soil for each percent of organic matter.

A typical sandy soil needs an increase in organic content of approximately 5% to bring it up to a level that would maximize water-holding capacity. This would add 7.5 quarts or 1.88 gallons of water for each cubicfoot of soil. This means that a 10,000 square foot lawn would hold 18,800 gallons of water that would otherwise not be held and made available to plants. A town with 5,000 residences each with 10,000 square feet of lawn could potentially save 94 million gallons of water as a result of increased organic matter content in the soil by 5%.

Hairbear
08-12-2012, 22:01
From: http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/08/25/just-how-much-rainwater-can-you-collect-off-your-roof/

"...Let’s take a look at a hypothetical example to see just how much water we can collect from rainfall. If you have 1,000 square feet of roof on your house, and it rains just 1 inch, you can collect 600 gallons of water to be used in your garden, for washing your car, or just for drop irrigation around your property. That’s 600 less gallons you have to pay for and use from your town water supply! So how can you do the math for your own roof? Just multiple the square footage of roof space you have available X 0.6 gallons per square foot per inch of rain, and you can see how much water you can collect from each inch of rain that falls.

So if you have 2,500 square feet of roof available for water catchment, and a single inch of rain falls one day, we see that:

2,500 X 0.6 = 1,500 gallons of water can be harvested for future use…from only one inch of rainfall!


On average, Americans use about 69 gallons of water per person per day (http://www.h2oconserve.org/index.php?page_id=7&pd=household) for bathing, cooking, cleaning and flushing toilets – and is just for indoor water use and does not account for any watering/car washing going on outside. That amounts to about 2,100 gallons a month for each person – or only slightly more than you might be able to collect off your roof in a single rainstorm. Sure, you might not want to use that water for your showers or drinking water, but it can be done…and many people are putting cisterns in their yard and systems in their house to be able to do so. But if you are not interested in doing that and just wanted to use it outside, using a rain barrel (http://thegoodhuman.com/resources/rainbarrel.php) or two under your downspouts can make a big difference in your monthly water usage and bill. Let’s take a look at one more example to see how much of a difference collecting rainwater can make – If you live in Boston, Massachusetts, which gets an average of 42.53 inches of rain per year (http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Massachusetts/Boston/), and you live in a house with 1,000 square feet of roof space…

1,000 X 0.6 X 42.53 = 25,518 gallons of water collected each year in Boston, MA.



That’s a lot of water that you can save (and money!) by hooking up and using rainwater catchment systems at your house. It’s a big return for a very small investment, and I bet you will hear something different the next time the weatherperson says “X city received an inch of rain today”!"

Maybe it is not a matter of how much water is captured, but rather the municipalities are more worried about losing $$$ from the sale of water? :confused: :-? and would have cut down on water run off ending up at treatment plants,would drasticly cut down on plastics and other floatable debris winding up in our oceans from shore line developments,would cut down on expansion costs of existing grid system to both power and keep up with growing population,would lesson the maintainance of existing water lines,would soften the effects of grid shut down in case of emergencies.would reduce the amount of chemicals you add to your vegetables.

Hairbear
08-12-2012, 22:24
does the part of the constitution that ensures us the right to life ,liberty, and the persuit of happiness include water as a need for life.

pervy_sage
08-13-2012, 06:53
does the part of the constitution that ensures us the right to life ,liberty, and the persuit of happiness include water as a need for life.

Read earlier posts for that argument and make up your own mind. I am not going there again. Bad for my blood pressure.

Water Rat
08-13-2012, 07:10
Read earlier posts for that argument and make up your own mind. I am not going there again. Bad for my blood pressure.

Uh-oh... Did your wife find you slumped over the keyboard again??? You really have got to stop doing that. Keyboard imprints take a while to leave the forehead.

pervy_sage
08-13-2012, 07:46
Uh-oh... Did your wife find you slumped over the keyboard again??? You really have got to stop doing that. Keyboard imprints take a while to leave the forehead.

Yeah, everyone at work is starting to call me YTREWQ.

Montana AT05
08-13-2012, 19:52
Is water free?

No.

fiddlehead
08-13-2012, 21:20
Is water free?

No.

In Montana? Was free for me in that state.
Just got it myself from the mountain stream. (from a Van Morrison song)
Maybe times have changed. (but I doubt it)

jockellis
08-13-2012, 21:25
Has anyone actually read The Condtitution? It doesn't give anyone but the government the right to take and then that has to be paid for. If someone had something you want and won't sell it, you have the right to leave and go somewhere else to look for it. The Constitution guarantees only peaceful assembly, not Los Angeles riots. Those folks decided to steal tvs, etc just because they wanted them; they didn't need them.

pervy_sage
08-13-2012, 21:56
Where is Winds and the Cliff Note summary when we need him.

I sense a bout of deja vu coming on...

Wise Old Owl
08-13-2012, 22:03
Pervy Sage's Sig at the moment is "A frog in a well does not know the great ocean" - Japanese Proverb



The frog is happy in the well and his belly is full, he need's not to know the ocean - the owl has spoke.

Hairbear
08-13-2012, 22:07
Read earlier posts for that argument and make up your own mind. I am not going there again. Bad for my blood pressure.you make a good point....with all this talk about water being free,maybe we should consider making water safe before we give a value to it.it sure will be a shame when we find out it used to be worth something, before we screwed it all up.the only value water has is the ability for it to give life, we are slowly devaluing the very thing that is being given value.

Wise Old Owl
08-13-2012, 22:09
Hairbear! Pervy sage and tdoczi need to find a room and a beer summit.... nevermind.LMFaO

Hairbear
08-13-2012, 22:25
if you fear the violence that you see the latest drug crack doing to your way of life,and how safe you feel in it.try water, we all need it on a regular basis to live. i would bet after anyones loved ones start to die from the lack of it,there would be hell on earth and nothing will matter except that next drink.so in reality water is not free your very life is hanging in the balance because of it ,and it wont matter at the end if you agree or disagree you will still thirst for something you dont have.kind of ironic isnt it,we destroy water in the material things we thirst for but our things wont get back what we will really thirst for in the end.

pervy_sage
08-13-2012, 22:52
you make a good point....with all this talk about water being free,maybe we should consider making water safe before we give a value to it.it sure will be a shame when we find out it used to be worth something, before we screwed it all up.the only value water has is the ability for it to give life, we are slowly devaluing the very thing that is being given value.


There were many good points made (and not all by me), but I think there was a slight breakdown in the discussion as to context and frame of reference. It happens, but hopefully folks can sort thru the thought processes on each side of the discussion.

As I've been told, it's all good.

I've had "discussions" with my libertarian coworker (yes, the same libertarian that instigated the kerfuffle) about the value of money, with him insisting we return to the gold standard. I've suggested using water instead, or even boiling things down to the bare essence of physics and use BTU's as a means of currency. He was stuck on gold for some reason, I guess cuz it is shiny. I keep telling him he can't eat it.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, it will be food, water and toilet paper that will be used for currency. Oh, and of course the mandatory five bullets.

tdoczi
08-13-2012, 23:42
It's already paid for, therefore it's free :-?

its the "free= i didnt pay for it mentality" you know, like free healthcare.

man, i actually go hiking for a few days and the fun starts again here without me.

tdoczi
08-13-2012, 23:43
Let me take a moment to fasten on my blood pressure cuff...just in case.

I would hope everyone realizes that within any organized human collective where everyone is intended to share equal rights and liberties, a balance needs to be maintained between the individual and the collective. No one individual within the collective should be permitted to acquire sufficient resources (equating to power and influence) to the point where it treads upon the rights of others within the collective. Nor, as my rival from previous posts has noted, should any individual be permitted to take resources from another without due compensation or due process of law. Conversely, the machinations of the collective should not be permitted to wholly remove or unduly impair the civil liberties of the individual or seize property without due process of law and or due compensation (5th amendment btw).

It is the responsibility of the citizen to protect their own rights within the collective against unscrupulous individuals, and ensure those appointed to governance uphold the laws of the collective and prevent the amoral workings of said collective from crushing the rights of the individual like a locomotive with no engineer.

Ideally the citizenry would do this peacefully and with reasonable discourse, voting and whatever judicial avenues are appropriate. But since we are human and haven't evolved passed being primarily driven by misplaced impulses and emotions stemming from fear, anxiety, paranoia, desire, etc, we have what we have.

The comment I quoted leans to that sense of impulse. Do folks honestly believe we are destined for rainwater police breaking down doors to confiscate the five gallon pale on your patio? If we have gotten to that point, then it means we ignored the dire signs of resource depletion leading up to that point and effectively did nothing as a society. Can't imagine us doing anything like that.

The laws on the books regarding rainwater collection, made prior to modern water systems, may have had genuine merit at the time, otherwise the community would not have permitted them to be passed (assuming they all were active within there community, otherwise tough *****). If the reasons for said laws are no longer valid, then the community should work to change or modify those laws to solve the problem at hand while maintaining the integrity of all those civil liberties we like.

Simple, right?


i stopped after the opening, because there is no collective. collectivism is nonsense.

tdoczi
08-13-2012, 23:46
This thread reminds me of a Simpson's episode where, faced with decreased electric usage, Mr. Burns devises a plan to increase demand. He does this by erecting a giant sun shield on the top of a mountain, effectively blocking the sun to the entire town and forcing everyone to turn on their lights.

If we follow the logic of SOME people, he has every right, and has effectively taken posession of the sunlight that crosses his property.




if by SOME you mean me then youve totally misunderstood everything ive said. no surprise. again, the valid point of argument is how one acquires the posssesion in question. mr burns' acqiusition method in this case is not really an acquisition at all.

i look forward to raising your blood pressure again : )

tdoczi
08-13-2012, 23:49
does the part of the constitution that ensures us the right to life ,liberty, and the persuit of happiness include water as a need for life.

water may be a need for life, but what some fail to realize is that delivery of water and quality assurance of water, which is really what one pays for and what one provides when one owns water and sells it to others, are in no way even remotely a right. we dont all have a right to have a working faucet in our homes as some people seem to think.

Hairbear
08-14-2012, 06:12
water may be a need for life, but what some fail to realize is that delivery of water and quality assurance of water, which is really what one pays for and what one provides when one owns water and sells it to others, are in no way even remotely a right. we dont all have a right to have a working faucet in our homes as some people seem to think. not trying to stir the pot,but maybe we should limit the delivery of water based upon the responsibility of the person recieving it.if what leaves your home is dumped back into your water source do you really deserve the right to its use as your magical away place.there is no away just a more convienent place to throw it called tomorrow.i really cant find a way to see water as free,because it demands such great responsibility in its users.

tdoczi
08-14-2012, 06:28
not trying to stir the pot,but maybe we should limit the delivery of water based upon the responsibility of the person recieving it.if what leaves your home is dumped back into your water source do you really deserve the right to its use as your magical away place.there is no away just a more convienent place to throw it called tomorrow.i really cant find a way to see water as free,because it demands such great responsibility in its users.


not sure i follow but i agree with the last part : )

Hairbear
08-14-2012, 06:48
not sure i follow but i agree with the last part : ) sorry its early,i was trying to say that our right to the use of water should be based on what wastes we create in the use of it,and how that use impacts the very source from which it came.

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 08:20
if by SOME you mean me then youve totally misunderstood everything ive said. no surprise. again, the valid point of argument is how one acquires the posssesion in question. mr burns' acqiusition method in this case is not really an acquisition at all.

i look forward to raising your blood pressure again : )

I am past that. Once I realized what kind of person you are, it becomes easy to deal with you.

Like pointing out the contradictions in your own logic. Acquisition is acquisition. Collecting and possessing photons is no different than collecting and possessing water molecules. A dam and a sunshade are essentially performing the same function, and in my example serves the same purpose. If he used solar cells instead of just a shade (which would be a sound if not despicable business model) then not only could he deny the sunlight to the folks below based on his property rights, but then sell the electricity generated back to them so they can have light, assuming they could pay his price. Saying this isn't following your definition of possession and property shows you don't even understand (or read for that matter) what you are saying. If I were wrong, then someone else here would either politely explain my error, or just call me out for BS. Still waiting for that to happen.


i stopped after the opening, because there is no collective. collectivism is nonsense.

Alright, I will admit you got me on semantics. I used a term (incorrectly it appears) that has unfortunately been used for defining what your type fears most. Regardless, human life is filled with collective behavior, starting first and foremost with family. Just to clarify my usage, I intended it as a generalized term for humans pooling resources for mutual benefit and advancement, which would include both government and business alike, not the "state ownership" definition that makes folks like you have panic attacks and sudden brain loss.

You may feel the concept is nonsense (or maybe wish it were), but it is definitely not nonexistent, and is in fact the basis of the Constitutional democracy we live. The Constitution provides for a balance between collective (public) and individual (private) rights. It is also the context under which I have been speaking this whole time. A publicly traded company is privatized collectivism fer cryin' out loud.

I do hope you enjoyed your hike on the privately owned land that you payed due compensation to the landowner for use and consumption of resources, because it would be ironic if you had hiked on that nonsensical collectively owned public land. Hope you got a receipt, because I'm sure it is probably tax deductible.

On a side note:

I've realized I never actually answered the original question. Since everything falls to the principles of physics, water is not free as it requires exchange of energy to attain. Even the air we breath requires effort to inhale, thus is not free. Humans are an inefficient net loss system, so as they say, nothing in life is free. You can only hope some collective of idiots don't make it impossible to get at those things necessary for life.

Gray Blazer
08-14-2012, 08:44
The guys who charge for their bottled water prolly got it for free. Evian is a brand of bottled water. Evian spelled backward is Naive. If you ever saw the source of Zephryhills water you prolly wouldn't buy it again.

BTW, Ichetucknee is awesome!

tdoczi
08-14-2012, 09:04
I am past that. Once I realized what kind of person you are, it becomes easy to deal with you.

Like pointing out the contradictions in your own logic. Acquisition is acquisition. Collecting and possessing photons is no different than collecting and possessing water molecules. A dam and a sunshade are essentially performing the same function, and in my example serves the same purpose. If he used solar cells instead of just a shade (which would be a sound if not despicable business model) then not only could he deny the sunlight to the folks below based on his property rights, but then sell the electricity generated back to them so they can have light, assuming they could pay his price. Saying this isn't following your definition of possession and property shows you don't even understand (or read for that matter) what you are saying. If I were wrong, then someone else here would either politely explain my error, or just call me out for BS. Still waiting for that to happen.



stealing from others, which is what it can be said mr burns is doing in the ridiculous example you site, is not an acceptable form of acquisition. buying property that contains a lake and then saying "this lake is mine, you can not have the water in it" is a different story. i doubt that you cant really see the difference, you just dont want to.

now, what exactly owning the lake means as far as the eternal water rights it may or may not imply... thats a different story and more akin to your burns example.

tdoczi
08-14-2012, 09:07
The guys who charge for their bottled water prolly got it for free. Evian is a brand of bottled water. Evian spelled backward is Naive. If you ever saw the source of Zephryhills water you prolly wouldn't buy it again.

BTW, Ichetucknee is awesome!

i hardly ever buy bottled water, but even if they get it for free, if they wish to ensure its safety and then bottle it to sell it to others and those others, for whatever reason, are willing to pay for it, good bless them all.

like most battles this is always fought from the wrong end. if you wish to crusade against bottled water then convince people not to buy it and it will inevitably go away. thats too much work though so we blame the supplier and not those who demand it. same thing with the non sense about giant sized soft drinks i alluded to awhile back.

tdoczi
08-14-2012, 09:09
I am past that. Once I realized what kind of person you are, it becomes easy to deal with you.

Like pointing out the contradictions in your own logic. Acquisition is acquisition. Collecting and possessing photons is no different than collecting and possessing water molecules. A dam and a sunshade are essentially performing the same function, and in my example serves the same purpose. If he used solar cells instead of just a shade (which would be a sound if not despicable business model) then not only could he deny the sunlight to the folks below based on his property rights, but then sell the electricity generated back to them so they can have light, assuming they could pay his price. Saying this isn't following your definition of possession and property shows you don't even understand (or read for that matter) what you are saying. If I were wrong, then someone else here would either politely explain my error, or just call me out for BS. Still waiting for that to happen.



oh, and just for clarity- ive never at any point in this supported anyone's right to dam a river and cut off the water supply to those downriver. reread my posts, the very first one calls such a practice questionable.

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 09:09
The guys who charge for their bottled water prolly got it for free. Evian is a brand of bottled water. Evian spelled backward is Naive. If you ever saw the source of Zephryhills water you prolly wouldn't buy it again.

BTW, Ichetucknee is awesome!

Lets not confuse freely available with free. Evian invested in all the equipment and employees needed to bottle the water. You aren't really paying for the water itself, you are paying for the value added (favorite term amongst business types). Some of that value is real, some is BS, but it falls to the basic principle of charging what the market will bear. If people think the added value is worthy, they will buy, otherwise they will look at you funny and say, "Really? $3 for something I can get out of my faucet?" And that is where the Mad Men come in and convince you smoking is healthy.

tdoczi
08-14-2012, 09:11
Lets not confuse freely available with free. Evian invested in all the equipment and employees needed to bottle the water. You aren't really paying for the water itself, you are paying for the value added (favorite term amongst business types). Some of that value is real, some is BS, but it falls to the basic principle of charging what the market will bear. If people think the added value is worthy, they will buy, otherwise they will look at you funny and say, "Really? $3 for something I can get out of my faucet?" And that is where the Mad Men come in and convince you smoking is healthy.

anmd how and where does anyone get water is that has not had value added? your faucet is value added, do you really NOT see that?!?!?!

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 09:33
anmd how and where does anyone get water is that has not had value added? your faucet is value added, do you really NOT see that?!?!?!

Do I not see what? That the relative value of bottled water is not equal to that of water? Did I say the faucet was free, or the water coming out of it? No. I figured everyone had a grasp of their own municipality water system and or private well system to affix a relative value to it themselves without me talking down to them in explaining it. That is called context, from which I was working within, and you continue to fall out of.

Keep poking, you might actually hit something.

Pedaling Fool
08-14-2012, 09:36
Interesting case; man gets 30 days in jail and $1,500 fine. There are two videos in the link if anyone is interested: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/oregon-man-in-possession-of-13-million-gallons-of-illicit-rainwater-sentence


Oregon man in possession of 13 million gallons of illicit rainwater sentenced to jail

A Oregon resident with three massive manmade ponds on his property is sentenced to 30 days in jail after being found guilty (again) of collecting rainwater without a permit.

I’ve taken a look at some mighty impressive (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/extreme-residential-rainwater-harvesting) rainwater collection systems in the past, but it appears that Gary Harrington, 64, takes the proverbial cake when it comes to hoarder-esque rainwater collection activities: over the years, the Oregon resident has built three massive reservoirs — in actuality, they’re more like proper manmade ponds — on his 170-acre property on Crowfoot Road in rural Eagle Point that hold roughly 13 million gallons of rainwater and snow runoff. That’s enough agua to fill about 20 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Of course, it boggles the mind as to what a single man needs that much rainwater for. One would assume that Harrington is reusing it both for irrigation purposes and for non-potable indoor use as well, which, unlike in many states (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/harvest-and-flush-indoor-rainwater-recycling-proposed-in-california), is permitted in Oregon. But 13 million gallons? Apparently Harrington, who has stocked at least one of the reservoirs with largemouth bass and built docks around it, believes that his watery stash is a much-needed necessity when wildfires pop up in the area (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAmZ2ZbyZ5o&feature=player_embedded). “The fish (http://www.whiteblaze.net/eco-glossary/fish) and the docks are icing on the cake," Harrington tells the Medford Mail Tribune (http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120805/NEWS/208050318). "It's totally committed to fire suppression."

The bigger story here is that rainwater collection is indeed kosher in Oregon, provided that you’re capturing it from an artificial, impervious surface such as a rooftop with the assistance of rainwater barrels. But an extensive reservoir set-up complete with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten without the proper, state-issued water-right permits — after all, Oregon law dictates that water is a publicly owned resource — and Harrington did not possess said permits.

And so, after a protracted battle with Oregon’s Water Resources Department (http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/index.aspx), Harrington was convicted of nine misdemeanors and sentenced to 30 days in jail, slapped with a $1,500 fine, and ordered to breach his dams and drain his ponds. After the sentencing in late July, Harrington surrendered himself to authorities late last week and began his stint at the Jackson County Jail.

Apparently, once upon a time, the state did indeed allow Harrington — code name: “Rain Main" — to collect water in his reservoirs. However, officials reversed their decision the same year, 2003, that the three permits were issued, citing a 1925 law that states the city of Medford holds all exclusive rights to "core sources of water" in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.

Despite withdrawal of the permits, Harrington kept on defiantly collectin’ under the belief that the laws did not apply to his situation, adamant that the water was coming strictly from rain and snow melt and not from tributaries flowing into the Big Butte River as officials had claimed. Harrington tells CNSNews.com: "They issued me my permits. I had my permits in hand and they retracted them just arbitrarily, basically. They took them back and said, 'No, you can't have them.' So I've been fighting it ever since."

It gets even more messy with accusations of water diversion and a three-year bench probation issued against Harringon in 2007. In that case, Harrington plead guilty and agreed to open up the gates of his reservoirs only to close them back up again shortly thereafter.

Oregon Water Resources Department deputy director Tom Paul tells the Medford Mail Tribune: “Mr. Harrington has operated these three reservoirs in flagrant violation of Oregon law for more than a decade. What we're after is compliance with Oregon water law, regardless of what the public thinks of Mr. Harrington.”


Paul elaborates to CNSNews.com:

A very short period of time following the expiration of his probation, he once again closed the gates and re-filled the reservoirs. So, this has been going on for some time and I think frankly the court felt that Mr. Harrington was not getting the message and decided that they’d already given him probation once and required him to open the gates and he refilled his reservoirs and it was business as usual for him, so I think the court wanted — it felt it needed — to give a stiffer penalty to get Mr. Harrington’s attention.


Lots more on this unusual and dramatic, err, rainstorm of a case — a case that's morphed into a battle not so much over rainwater and reservoirs, but over property rights and government bullying — at the Medford Mail Tribune (http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120805/NEWS/208050318) and CNSNews (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property/). You can also hear Harrington’s side of the case via a series of videos featuring legal advisor Dominic Notter and donate to his “get out of jail fund” over at www.empoweringthejury.com (http://www.empoweringthejury.com/) if you feel so inclined. The alleged wet bandit tells CNSNews.com: "When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, ‘This is wrong; you just can’t take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I’m going to fight it.”


Is Harrington deserved of his folk hero status? Or is he a straight-out theft? Lots of opinions on this one ... what's yours?

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 09:40
i stopped after the opening, because there is no collective. collectivism is nonsense.

You got me. I had to reread my own post. I never used the specific term collectivism in the post you referenced, so I retract my previous semantics comment. You can try to put words in my mouth, but don't forget folks can read.

Gray Blazer
08-14-2012, 09:54
i hardly ever buy bottled water, but even if they get it for free, if they wish to ensure its safety and then bottle it to sell it to others and those others, for whatever reason, are willing to pay for it, good bless them all.

like most battles this is always fought from the wrong end. if you wish to crusade against bottled water then convince people not to buy it and it will inevitably go away. thats too much work though so we blame the supplier and not those who demand it. same thing with the non sense about giant sized soft drinks i alluded to awhile back.

I did not realize this was a battle.

I was just putting out some observations of mine. I am definitely not against free enterprise and/or capitalism. Out of here.

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 10:43
Interesting case; man gets 30 days in jail and $1,500 fine. There are two videos in the link if anyone is interested: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/oregon-man-in-possession-of-13-million-gallons-of-illicit-rainwater-sentence


Oregon man in possession of 13 million gallons of illicit rainwater sentenced to jail

A Oregon resident with three massive manmade ponds on his property is sentenced to 30 days in jail after being found guilty (again) of collecting rainwater without a permit.



John, thank you for finding this case. I can tell you are the consummate researcher.

pervy_sage
08-14-2012, 11:59
I did not realize this was a battle.

I was just putting out some observations of mine. I am definitely not against free enterprise and/or capitalism. Out of here.


Don't go down that path with him. I agree no battle or beginnings of rallying a "crusade" was evident, only a bit of sarcasm. His response phrasing was a deliberate attempt to provoke. Ignore it unless you want to fight an irreconcilable argument. Don't be a fool like me.

Lone Wolf
08-14-2012, 12:02
When I was young I can remember my mother saying drink water it's free,when I would make a request for another soda while at a resturant.Over the years we are bombarded by all the bottled water that lines the selves at most stores.So is water free?should it be free?There are many places on the planet where clean drinking water is not available,and when I really think about just how lucky we are to have fresh clean drinking water,I feel very gratful,for it,and feel very fortunate to have it,whether it's free or not.Cause when you don't have it,you don't have it.What's your take on clean fresh drinking water,and what it means to you?
when i'm on the trail it's free. i never treat or filter

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 01:11
Do I not see what? That the relative value of bottled water is not equal to that of water? Did I say the faucet was free, or the water coming out of it? No. I figured everyone had a grasp of their own municipality water system and or private well system to affix a relative value to it themselves without me talking down to them in explaining it. That is called context, from which I was working within, and you continue to fall out of.

Keep poking, you might actually hit something.

so how do you propose that one should be able to receive their rightful allotment of water without being required to compensate anyone for adding value to it?

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 01:14
You got me. I had to reread my own post. I never used the specific term collectivism in the post you referenced, so I retract my previous semantics comment. You can try to put words in my mouth, but don't forget folks can read.

referring to a thing known as "the collective" is collectivism whether you actually used that exact word or not. thats like saying you went for a hike and i asked you how did you like hiking? and you said i never said i went hiking, i said i went for a hike.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 07:18
referring to a thing known as "the collective" is collectivism whether you actually used that exact word or not. thats like saying you went for a hike and i asked you how did you like hiking? and you said i never said i went hiking, i said i went for a hike.

Unless you are an unperson, then you are part of a collective called a Constitutional Democracy. Get yourself a dictionary. If you are going to put words in my mouth at least use the right ones.

Collective: a group of people gathered in common interest (i.e. a Church, Boy Scout troop, Militia, or teabaggers)

Collectivism: a specific term used to describe a specific economic and political philosophy involving state ownership of common resources and industries.

Can you fathom the difference? Obviously not.

Maddog
08-15-2012, 07:28
My water comes straight from a small stream up behind the cottage. Don't get much better than that!
Lucky dog...must be nice! Maddog:)

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 07:31
so how do you propose that one should be able to receive their rightful allotment of water without being required to compensate anyone for adding value to it?

Wow, that was almost a genuine reasonable question. You left out all the important stuff like why can't this individual compensate, who has control over the water, is the marketplace for the water fair and equitable or slanted to benefit the resource holders, how much government oversight is there, is the government of for and by the people or just a branch of a military industrial complex, is the money system set up to fluctuate readily against actual market forces, or is it pegged to some rare commodity that can be artificially influenced by a minority group within the market. You know...context.

Keep swinging, cuz my arm is not even tired.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 08:46
Wow, that was almost a genuine reasonable question. You left out all the important stuff like why can't this individual compensate, who has control over the water, is the marketplace for the water fair and equitable or slanted to benefit the resource holders, how much government oversight is there, is the government of for and by the people or just a branch of a military industrial complex, is the money system set up to fluctuate readily against actual market forces, or is it pegged to some rare commodity that can be artificially influenced by a minority group within the market. You know...context.

Keep swinging, cuz my arm is not even tired.


blah blah blah a simple question that you cant answer because you see where it is going.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 09:03
blah blah blah a simple question that you cant answer because you see where it is going.

Yes I do know. It is going nowhere because you haven't a clue about critical thinking. A question with no frame of reference has no answer.

That would like someone asking me if they can borrow some money and I sure, then hand them 100 drachmas.

In your case it is a poorly bated trap that you seek to ensnare unaware folk into a heated conversation so you can thump your chest in mock achievement after you twist the conversation around to your stagnant ideology and perverted perception of the world (and I know about perverted).

Homey don't play that.

Swing and a miss...

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 09:22
Yes I do know. It is going nowhere because you haven't a clue about critical thinking. A question with no frame of reference has no answer.

That would like someone asking me if they can borrow some money and I sure, then hand them 100 drachmas.

In your case it is a poorly bated trap that you seek to ensnare unaware folk into a heated conversation so you can thump your chest in mock achievement after you twist the conversation around to your stagnant ideology and perverted perception of the world (and I know about perverted).

Homey don't play that.

Swing and a miss...

no, you just refuse to accept that the context doesnt matter. again, everything with people of your mindset is but, if, who, where, when, how. you are incapable of coming to a consistent logical conclusion and applying it universally. everything to you has conditions, and those conditions are merely a mechanism for you to justify the outcome you wish to see in any circumstance whether or not it is logically consistent with your other positions.

clearly, if you believe that those who add value to water have a right to be compensated, then we're back to where i and your libertarian friend started- people have a right to pursue the acquisition of water unheeded. they do not have a right to be aided by anyone in this acquisition or to have safe dependable drinking water just given to them. you fall back on context so that you can have it both ways and somehow maintain the "right to water" as you define it and the right of people to own, add value to and resell water.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 09:40
Yes I do know. It is going nowhere because you haven't a clue about critical thinking. A question with no frame of reference has no answer.

That would like someone asking me if they can borrow some money and I sure, then hand them 100 drachmas.


the difference is the $100 is yours to do with as you please based on any criteria you like. you can say no to 1 person because they have green eyes and then say yes to another person just because you like their shoes. its yours, do what you want. rights and the law do not function in this manner. you like to bring up the constitution, have you heard of the right to equal protection under the law by chance?

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 10:11
no, you just refuse to accept that the context doesnt matter. again, everything with people of your mindset is but, if, who, where, when, how. you are incapable of coming to a consistent logical conclusion and applying it universally. everything to you has conditions, and those conditions are merely a mechanism for you to justify the outcome you wish to see in any circumstance whether or not it is logically consistent with your other positions.

clearly, if you believe that those who add value to water have a right to be compensated, then we're back to where i and your libertarian friend started- people have a right to pursue the acquisition of water unheeded. they do not have a right to be aided by anyone in this acquisition or to have safe dependable drinking water just given to them. you fall back on context so that you can have it both ways and somehow maintain the "right to water" as you define it and the right of people to own, add value to and resell water.

If we lived in a steady state universe where nothing changed, then yes, a fixed point view and application of ideology would work. Last I checked the physical aspect of the universe (the conditions) change. My mindset is appropriate. Yours lends one to becoming either subjugated or extinct. The human strength is that of adapting to changing conditions, both individually and socially. To purposely take a single point and single solution stance (and actually follow thru with it) on all things is foolish, lazy, and or ignorant. Expressing a universal answer might be nice to satisfy the simple minded, but it is not realistic, at least not if we are speaking in the context of a civilized society.

I have already agreed with you on fair compensation. The Constitution agrees with you on fair compensation. You seem to think I don't agree with you and keep insisting that I'm advocating theft, again putting words in my mouth. I know you are just itching to talk about health care, but that ain't happening either, because the argument is the same, and the results are the same.

The only time theft would ever come into play (and I am not advocating theft, just so we're clear) is under the condition of pure anarchy, at which point civil rights are out the window, and rules of survival take over, meaning every person for themselves (and their convictions).

If you can't understand basic concepts like frame of reference and context, then there is no hope having a reasonable conversation with you, because reason demands frame of reference and context. Rule of law demands defining who, what, where, when, why, and how. If you exclude those concepts, then you have anarchy.

Maybe if I say the word enough, in context, you will get it...nope, not likely.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 10:13
the difference is the $100 is yours to do with as you please based on any criteria you like. you can say no to 1 person because they have green eyes and then say yes to another person just because you like their shoes. its yours, do what you want. rights and the law do not function in this manner. you like to bring up the constitution, have you heard of the right to equal protection under the law by chance?

My example flew right over your head didn't it? Like talking to a lamp post, a very right leaning lamp post.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 10:15
If we lived in a steady state universe where nothing changed, then yes, a fixed point view and application of ideology would work. Last I checked the physical aspect of the universe (the conditions) change. My mindset is appropriate. Yours lends one to becoming either subjugated or extinct. The human strength is that of adapting to changing conditions, both individually and socially. To purposely take a single point and single solution stance (and actually follow thru with it) on all things is foolish, lazy, and or ignorant. Expressing a universal answer might be nice to satisfy the simple minded, but it is not realistic, at least not if we are speaking in the context of a civilized society.

I have already agreed with you on fair compensation. The Constitution agrees with you on fair compensation. You seem to think I don't agree with you and keep insisting that I'm advocating theft, again putting words in my mouth. I know you are just itching to talk about health care, but that ain't happening either, because the argument is the same, and the results are the same.

The only time theft would ever come into play (and I am not advocating theft, just so we're clear) is under the condition of pure anarchy, at which point civil rights are out the window, and rules of survival take over, meaning every person for themselves (and their convictions).

If you can't understand basic concepts like frame of reference and context, then there is no hope having a reasonable conversation with you, because reason demands frame of reference and context. Rule of law demands defining who, what, where, when, why, and how. If you exclude those concepts, then you have anarchy.

Maybe if I say the word enough, in context, you will get it...nope, not likely.

so then, as the world and society changes and it evolves and the CONTEXT changes it is theoretically possible for a CONTEXT in which slavery may again be permissible to develop? or that would allow and encourage pedophilia? are there no things that are universally acceptable or not acceptable in any context? i certainly think there are.

as for me insisting i dont agree with you even though you say you do, its because you only agree with me under certain contexts and not others. at least acknowledge thats what youre doing.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 10:17
My example flew right over your head didn't it? Like talking to a lamp post, a very right leaning lamp post.

and what flies over your head is the law does not have the same luxury of judging criteria that a private individual has. when you allow a single individual, or even a group of individuals, to bend and contort the laws based on what they see as appropriate context you have tyranny. that those who benefit because they fit or agree with the context may not see it this way does not make it any less so.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 12:57
so then, as the world and society changes and it evolves and the CONTEXT changes it is theoretically possible for a CONTEXT in which slavery may again be permissible to develop? or that would allow and encourage pedophilia? are there no things that are universally acceptable or not acceptable in any context? i certainly think there are.

as for me insisting i dont agree with you even though you say you do, its because you only agree with me under certain contexts and not others. at least acknowledge thats what youre doing.

Of course I am only agreeing with you within a specific context because that is the only place some of your points are valid. The rest of your ideas can only exist in some fairy land that you seem to be exclusively sharing with yourself.

If you are seeking absolute truth, then start studying up on physics because that is the only place you will find it. The laws of physics are dictated by the nature of the universe and described in the language of mathematics, which humans are not even close to or possibly capable of understanding.

In an infinite universe, all things are possible. In our little microverse here on earth, we are limited by what we individually or as a group (don't want to use the "c" word again) decide is possible or allowable, and that changes constantly.

Slavery still exists if you hadn't noticed, just without the physical shackles. Only the context has changed. And pedophilia is slowly shifting from something inherently evil and associated with Satan and demons to what it actually is, a severe mental illness. Again, the context has changed. We don't have to like those things (lord I hope you don't like those things) but we can change how we perceive them and how we act towards them.

In the mean time...


and what flies over your head is the law does not have the same luxury of judging criteria that a private individual has. when you allow a single individual, or even a group of individuals, to bend and contort the laws based on what they see as appropriate context you have tyranny. that those who benefit because they fit or agree with the context may not see it this way does not make it any less so.

Um, laws are created via the judgement of humans, enforced via the judgement of humans, and interpreted via the judgement of humans, each under the conditions that exist at a particular singular point in time. (unless you are Scalia, in which case we all still living the same day in the 1789). You are trying to find an absolute in things that aren't absolute because all variables can't be known. As humans all we can do is give it our best guess, which is sometimes mostly right, most times mostly wrong.

If you want absolutes, here are a few.

If a human does consume enough water, they will die.

If there are two humans and there is only enough water for one to consume, at least one of them is going to die.

If there are two humans and there is sufficient supply of water for both and both have equal access, both will live (other causes excluded).

If there are two humans and the access to supply is unequal (disregarding chance or purposeful intent) such that one does not have sufficient supply, then at least one of them is going to die.

Beyond that it is just an extrapolation based on population if no other things change. There are no morals, there are no laws, there are no judgements. Once human morals, laws, and judgement is introduced, then the absolutes are no longer absolute and become directly impacted by the human condition (there's that word again).

I get the feeling you would be a much happier person if you were the only one on the planet, since you keep couching your arguments around the individual (which I assume is you), and keep neglecting everybody else (who also happen to be individuals). You have a singular perception, and can't seem to see outside of your tiny little box. I feel sorry for you, because you must feel very lonely, persecuted, and oppressed.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 15:01
I get the feeling you would be a much happier person if you were the only one on the planet, since you keep couching your arguments around the individual (which I assume is you), and keep neglecting everybody else (who also happen to be individuals).

yes, we are all individuals and therefore are all afforded the same individual rights regardless of context. otherwise known as equal protection. thank you. : )

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 17:06
yes, we are all individuals and therefore are all afforded the same individual rights regardless of context. otherwise known as equal protection. thank you. : )

Sorry, but your rights are a human construct you are granted or denied by other humans both individually and as a group. They only exist in your head, and then only under the conditions you chose to apply them. So humans do not have an the intrinsic value of rights. The are made up.

You can say you have rights like you can say you have three arms, but if no one else agrees, guess what, they don't exist.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 17:48
It takes two to tango, which I believe constitutes a group, see also...collective.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 18:37
Sorry, but your rights are a human construct you are granted or denied by other humans both individually and as a group. They only exist in your head, and then only under the conditions you chose to apply them. So humans do not have an the intrinsic value of rights. The are made up.

You can say you have rights like you can say you have three arms, but if no one else agrees, guess what, they don't exist.

wow, and thats ballgame. thanks for at least revealing your true, frightening self. and stop going around quoting "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the rest of that line goes "endowed with by our creator" and "inalienable" two concepts you have just freely admitted to not believing in. jefferson would be appalled.

wow, i'm impressed.

Montana AT05
08-15-2012, 19:13
Sorry, but your rights are a human construct you are granted or denied by other humans both individually and as a group. They only exist in your head, and then only under the conditions you chose to apply them. So humans do not have an the intrinsic value of rights. The are made up.

You can say you have rights like you can say you have three arms, but if no one else agrees, guess what, they don't exist.

That is second line of thought followed by a person who wants something that another person owns. The first line of thought is envy.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 19:29
That is second line of thought followed by a person who wants something that another person owns. The first line of thought is envy.

or by someone who is just positive they know better than everyone else how we all should all live our lives. theyll say we're free, until one of us dares claim freedom to do something they dont like, then their panties get in a bunch.

its like hyoh x a million.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 19:52
wow, and thats ballgame. thanks for at least revealing your true, frightening self. and stop going around quoting "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the rest of that line goes "endowed with by our creator" and "inalienable" two concepts you have just freely admitted to not believing in. jefferson would be appalled.

wow, i'm impressed.


And queue the God angle...

was thinking on the drive home you would bring that out about now. So glad I was right, because that means you are exactly the kind of person I imagined. Shallow and scared of your own existence. God always comes out when reason begins to overwhelm the argument.

Not about to get into a theological debate, because that crutch automatically relieves you of having to follow any reason whatsoever.

Absolute truth and theism don't mix. Your credibility stops the moment you try to assume what the "creator" intended, because anything you say is likely BS.

Jefferson would have probably said the same thing behind closed doors. He was a shaman, and like every shaman before he had to convince the wolves to not eat each other over their own misguided desires somehow. That is how we got organized religion in the first place, and in turn rule of law. And because of man's inalienable ability to crap on each other, we have what we have.

But that has nothing to do with the argument, and yet again you've shifted the context and frame of reference from law and logic to theology because you were losing. If the sum of what you have said made any sense, I would have conceded long ago.

Not only are you not in my ballpark, you aren't even in my league. Go back to the minors till you learn to debate, or better yet, put in a resume at Fox News. You already have the talking points, the misguided sense of reason, and the blind self righteousness. You already have one fan.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 20:13
And queue the God angle...

was thinking on the drive home you would bring that out about now. So glad I was right, because that means you are exactly the kind of person I imagined. Shallow and scared of your own existence. God always comes out when reason begins to overwhelm the argument.

Not about to get into a theological debate, because that crutch automatically relieves you of having to follow any reason whatsoever.

Absolute truth and theism don't mix. Your credibility stops the moment you try to assume what the "creator" intended, because anything you say is likely BS.

Jefferson would have probably said the same thing behind closed doors. He was a shaman, and like every shaman before he had to convince the wolves to not eat each other over their own misguided desires somehow. That is how we got organized religion in the first place, and in turn rule of law. And because of man's inalienable ability to crap on each other, we have what we have.

But that has nothing to do with the argument, and yet again you've shifted the context and frame of reference from law and logic to theology because you were losing. If the sum of what you have said made any sense, I would have conceded long ago.

Not only are you not in my ballpark, you aren't even in my league. Go back to the minors till you learn to debate, or better yet, put in a resume at Fox News. You already have the talking points, the misguided sense of reason, and the blind self righteousness. You already have one fan.


ok, lets go completely off the rails.

"the creator" in the context of jefferson's words has ZERO to do with a god of any theological sense. it is a statement of the inherent, intrinsic value of the individual man that is part of his existence. the creator can be whatever you want. your mom and dad if you prefer creator in the literal sense. it is no more an invocation of religion than is printing "in god we trust" on currency is.

and the fox news jabs are just idiotic and are just a typical leftwing ploy, ie, anyone who doesnt agree with them must be a moron who watches too much fox news. as i said, politicians, and people in general, from either the left or right wing of what passes for political thought these days feel the same way, the only difference is in what they feel that way about. my feelings on gay marriage, war, drug abuse and a slew of other issues wouldnt fly at fox news, just as my views that individual liberties are entwined with economic policy, and that economic policy can and is used as a means of subjugation isnt going to land me a gig at msnbc anytime soon. the right believes the only freedom you should have is economic, the elft beleives the only freedom you should have is social. neither has clue #1 what freedom is.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 20:25
or by someone who is just positive they know better than everyone else how we all should all live our lives. theyll say we're free, until one of us dares claim freedom to do something they dont like, then their panties get in a bunch.

its like hyoh x a million.

Hey everybody, psst...ya notice how they talk among themselves like we aren't in the room? Ya notice how they keep trying to apply unfounded intent to others in a failed attempt to degrade character when they don't care for the independent thoughts being voiced? Ya notice how the smack talk is followed by an absence of any rational rebuttal. Notice how childish that is?

I did.

tdoczi
08-15-2012, 20:42
Hey everybody, psst...ya notice how they talk among themselves like we aren't in the room? Ya notice how they keep trying to apply unfounded intent to others in a failed attempt to degrade character when they don't care for the independent thoughts being voiced? Ya notice how the smack talk is followed by an absence of any rational rebuttal. Notice how childish that is?

I did.

notice how one side just repeatedly attempts to degrade and mock the other? notice how one looses their cool while the other one has been level headed the whole time?

its ok, anger and frustration immediately precede new found enlightenment. its the part of of us that just has more trouble letting go. you can do it though, i know you can.

really the second you stated yourself in plain words what i concluded last week about your worldview i was done. that you can't see how you confirmed that you are exactly what i said you were is all the more evidence of your conflicted state of self denial.

keep talking though, someone besides me may listen.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 20:58
ok, lets go completely off the rails.

And we weren't there already?


"the creator" in the context of jefferson's words has ZERO to do with a god of any theological sense.

I believe I just said that.


it is a statement of the inherent, intrinsic value of the individual man that is part of his existence. the creator can be whatever you want. your mom and dad if you prefer creator in the literal sense. it is no more an invocation of religion than is printing "in god we trust" on currency is.

The capability to create the concept of rights may be intrinsic to man (and endowed by the creator), but the rights themselves are still man made as is the choice of adherence.

Oh, and "in god we trust" actually was intended as a religious invocation, as it was only a relatively recent addition to the currency (1956 actually).


and the fox news jabs are just idiotic and are just a typical leftwing ploy, ie, anyone who doesnt agree with them must be a moron who watches too much fox news.

Never said you were a moron (again with the word putting). In fact I believe I've stated you have had several good points, just not coherent in my opinion. Glenn Beck is a fairly intelligent, though mostly misguided person. Many sociopaths are actually very intelligent, doesn't mean I'd be taking advice on Constitutional law from them.

I would bet half the talking heads on Fox don't really believe half the BS they are forced to recite on air. I was only making an observation that all of your talking points and the progression of your argument sound so very close to innumerable scripts I've seen read on many of Fox's shows, and that you would need little practice to get a job. Implying anything more than that is on you and your insecurities (about being seen as moron perhaps).

Your beliefs are your own, as mine are to me. Some may overlap, most likely don't. The only thing that prevents us from just beating each other to a pulp over it is our mutual agreement that it would be better for both of us if we don't. That is what the rights we hold in such high esteem evolved from, our ability to see a more agreeable and mutually beneficial path. We attribute it to the creator because we didn't give ourselves that ability, it was bestowed, be it by the universe, nature, God, whatever.

And stop saying I want to steal your crap. You keep going back to that. Paranoid much? I could care less about your stuff. If anything I'd like to ditch most of what I got. Personal property is nothing but a boat anchor and false sense of success around peoples necks, but that is up to them to figure out, not as you seem to think, me.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 21:21
notice how one side just repeatedly attempts to degrade and mock the other? notice how one looses their cool while the other one has been level headed the whole time?

its ok, anger and frustration immediately precede new found enlightenment. its the part of of us that just has more trouble letting go. you can do it though, i know you can.

really the second you stated yourself in plain words what i concluded last week about your worldview i was done. that you can't see how you confirmed that you are exactly what i said you were is all the more evidence of your conflicted state of self denial.

keep talking though, someone besides me may listen.

If I had lost my cool, you would have known it, because I would have ignored you.

Don't confuse passion with anger.

I am plenty enlightened, but I am not egotistical enough to think there isn't plenty more to learn, but you haven't presented anything I haven't heard already and or have summarily dismissed as bad reasoning.

I must have missed what kind of person I am somewhere. Must have mistook it for a pathetic attempt at wit. Please recap so everyone knows since you know me so well and obviously everyone else is incapable of deciding for themselves.

If you have stopped listening, why are you still responding. I already suspected you weren't actually listening because you have misrepresented and or ignored most of what I have stated. You seem to follow the Adam Savage philosophy "I reject your reality and replace it with my own."

Go away if you can't stand to agree to disagree in an enlivened fashion.

Capt Nat
08-15-2012, 21:40
After 8 pages, I'm finally ready to weigh in... If you see me on the trail, stop me, I'll give you a drink of water. Call it free or not, I ask nothing in return...

Pedaling Fool
08-15-2012, 21:45
Sorry, but your rights are a human construct you are granted or denied by other humans both individually and as a group. They only exist in your head, and then only under the conditions you chose to apply them. So humans do not have an the intrinsic value of rights. The are made up.

You can say you have rights like you can say you have three arms, but if no one else agrees, guess what, they don't exist.This is weird, very weird. I've been watching this show and I swear prevy_sage and I sound a lot a like, at least in my mind as I read these words. The kicker was what I bold/underlined above, that sounds exactly like something I'd say.

I don't want to define anyone's politics because I know I'm always wrongly defined. However, if p_s and I were to start at the center point of the scale I do believe he would go left and I'd go right. Am I in some sort of parallel universe :D

BTW, I'm not getting into this, you'll got something beautiful going on and I'd just be a third wheel ;):)

Rasty
08-15-2012, 21:51
After 8 pages, I'm finally ready to weigh in... If you see me on the trail, stop me, I'll give you a drink of water. Call it free or not, I ask nothing in return...

You can't just be giving it away! Scheesh.:D

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 21:58
After 8 pages, I'm finally ready to weigh in... If you see me on the trail, stop me, I'll give you a drink of water. Call it free or not, I ask nothing in return...


I will gladly take you up on that, and offer my gratitude as payment.

pervy_sage
08-15-2012, 22:10
This is weird, very weird. I've been watching this show and I swear prevy_sage and I sound a lot a like, at least in my mind as I read these words. The kicker was what I bold/underlined above, that sounds exactly like something I'd say.

I don't want to define anyone's politics because I know I'm always wrongly defined. However, if p_s and I were to start at the center point of the scale I do believe he would go left and I'd go right. Am I in some sort of parallel universe :D

BTW, I'm not getting into this, you'll got something beautiful going on and I'd just be a third wheel ;):)

Left and right are just another of those constructs, mainly used to inaccurately pigeon hole folks based on a narrow sampling of their interactions. I'll profess guilt in that to a point. Anyone who doesn't is a member of the minority or a monk.

FYI, I lean more to correct than left or right, as best I can manage and other folks permit.

I agree with points of libertarians, I agree with points of Lincoln republicans, I even agree with points brought with the Tea Party. I will agree with anybody that has a good idea and a solid reasonable argument to back it up. And obviously I will challenge that argument to the limits for the sake of proving its veracity. Question everything, and be prepared to be questioned, within a proper rational context and frame of reference of course.

Capt Nat
08-15-2012, 22:44
I will gladly take you up on that, and offer my gratitude as payment.

Dang, then it's not free after all!!!

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 04:59
I will gladly take you up on that, and offer my gratitude as payment.

Dang, then it's not free after all!!!

It is likely the cosmic calculator will see a net zero balance in the end. Unlike humans, the universe isn't seeking a profit.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 08:34
Just a couple more things to put on the record, because I hate loose ends.


wow, and thats ballgame. thanks for at least revealing your true, frightening self.

You have no clue how scarey I really am. Be thankful you are not in my head.


...and stop going around quoting "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the rest of that line goes "endowed with by our creator" and "inalienable" two concepts you have just freely admitted to not believing in. jefferson would be appalled.

Just to make a point, the above referenced quotes are from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution (i.e. not the law of the land). The only reference in the original constitution about the rights of life, liberty and property is in the 5th amendment, and says nothing about them being inalienable. In fact it states they can be deprived with due process of law. So what do you think Jefferson was really thinking again?

The Declaration of Independence, IMO was more a document to create "conditions [as] merely a mechanism for [them] to justify the outcome [they] wish" which was to rally the populace of the colonies to fight against the monarchy and establish their own version of rule and the man made construct of rights and laws that followed. Pure propaganda, which they promptly recanted when writing the Constitution.

[QUOTE=tdoczi;1324606]wow, i'm impressed.

And well you should be.


notice how one side just repeatedly attempts to degrade and mock the other? notice how one looses their cool while the other one has been level headed the whole time?

And everyone can see who that is.


really the second you stated yourself in plain words what i concluded last week about your worldview i was done. that you can't see how you confirmed that you are exactly what i said you were is all the more evidence of your conflicted state of self denial.

You were done when you opened your mouth...indeed.

I speak from my conviction in sound reasoning tempered with knowing how small I am in the universe. There is no conflict, and certainly no self denial other than my primal instincts to rend my adversary and grind his bones to dust. But we are civilized here aren't we.

I am glad you figured out my world view and hopefully you learned something. I doubt it, but one can hope.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 08:39
Just a couple more things to put on the record, because I hate loose ends.



You have no clue how scarey I really am. Be thankful you are not in my head.

[QUOTE=tdoczi;1324606]...and stop going around quoting "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the rest of that line goes "endowed with by our creator" and "inalienable" two concepts you have just freely admitted to not believing in. jefferson would be appalled.

Just to make a point, the above referenced quotes are from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution (i.e. not the law of the land). The only reference in the original constitution about the rights of life, liberty and property is in the 5th amendment, and says nothing about them being inalienable. In fact it states they can be deprived with due process of law. So what do you think Jefferson was really thinking again?

The Declaration of Independence, IMO was more a document to create "conditions [as] merely a mechanism for [them] to justify the outcome [they] wish" which was to rally the populace of the colonies to fight against the monarchy and establish their own version of rule and the man made construct of rights and laws that followed. Pure propaganda, which they promptly recanted when writing the Constitution.



And well you should be.



And everyone can see who that is.



You were done when you opened your mouth...indeed.

I speak from my conviction in sound reasoning tempered with knowing how small I am in the universe. There is no conflict, and certainly no self denial other than my primal instincts to rend my adversary and grind his bones to dust. But we are civilized here aren't we.

I am glad you figured out my world view and hopefully you learned something. I doubt it, but one can hope.


it was you my friend who started quoting the declaration of independence, not i. just thought i would clarify.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 09:03
it was you my friend who started quoting the declaration of independence, not i. just thought i would clarify.

You quote me making a direct documented quote to the Declaration of Independence earlier than my last post and not just a inferring to the concept of right to life, and I'll concede that point.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 09:13
You quote me making a direct documented quote to the Declaration of Independence earlier than my last post and not just a inferring to the concept of right to life, and I'll concede that point.

post #33 where you type "right to life...." (quotes NOT mine, they are in your original post.)

i can see already your defense is going to be like the collective vs collectivist nonsense, but its pretty clear you were intending to type "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but truncated it. there is no other sensible explanation for the quotes and the trailing periods.

Gray Blazer
08-16-2012, 09:34
Wow ... you guys are way smarter than me. So, is water free or not?

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 09:53
[QUOTE=pervy_sage;1324794]
post #33 where you type "right to life...." (quotes NOT mine, they are in your original post.)

i can see already your defense is going to be like the collective vs collectivist nonsense, but its pretty clear you were intending to type "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but truncated it. there is no other sensible explanation for the quotes and the trailing periods.

Actually, I will argue exclusion because that post was an irrelevant anecdote intended only as humor and was not directly related to the nature of the thread at that time. Your post that followed threw down the gauntlet of a debate on rights.

You are correct that I did invoke that phrase within the confines of our debate, but I ain't telling you where.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 10:04
Wow ... you guys are way smarter than me.

That is debatable as well. You haven't spent the better part of the week beating your head against the immovable object.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 10:45
[QUOTE=tdoczi:1324796]

Actually, I will argue exclusion because that post was an irrelevant anecdote intended only as humor and was not directly related to the nature of the thread at that time. Your post that followed threw down the gauntlet of a debate on rights.

You are correct that I did invoke that phrase within the confines of our debate, but I ain't telling you where.

i frankly dont care where, i have no idea what this new game of "i aint telling" is meant to accomplish. anyway, anecdotal or not, all i was saying when i brought up the declaration is dont go around quoting part of a sentence if you dont believe in the rest of it.

Rasty
08-16-2012, 10:59
Wow ... you guys are way smarter than me. So, is water free or not?

Maybe?........

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 11:21
[QUOTE=pervy_sage;1324810][QUOTE=tdoczi:1324796]
i frankly dont care where, i have no idea what this new game of "i aint telling" is meant to accomplish. anyway, anecdotal or not, all i was saying when i brought up the declaration is dont go around quoting part of a sentence if you dont believe in the rest of it.

When I paraphrase or quote existing documents, it is to establish precident and context. Has little do do with belief. Beliefs are transient and evolve. That is why we debate.

Since you have made it quite clear context is irrelevant and precident is akin to tyrany, and you were looking for universally applied absolute truth, I gave you that, and you ran off scared.

To quote Nicholson "You can't handle the truth."

If you want to contInue that debate, I will give you a hint, look up "intrinsic" in the dictionary before you open your mouth.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 11:27
[QUOTE=tdoczi:1324820][QUOTE=pervy_sage;1324810]

When I paraphrase or quote existing documents, it is to establish precident and context. Has little do do with belief. Beliefs are transient and evolve. That is why we debate.

Since you have made it quite clear context is irrelevant and precident is akin to tyrany, and you were looking for universally applied absolute truth, I gave you that, and you ran off scared.

To quote Nicholson "You can't handle the truth."

If you want to contInue that debate, I will give you a hint, look up "intrinsic" in the dictionary before you open your mouth.

i do not wish to continue anything. if you wish to continue without me, i may first suggest learning to spell precedent and tyranny.

its funny you bring up a few good men, as your "humans dont have rights unless they are given to them" post made me think of nicholson screaming "your god damn right i did!"

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 11:43
intrinsic- belonging to a thing by its very nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature): the intrinsic value of agold ring.

our rights belong to us by our nature. you dont agree and i dont wish to debate the point, but dont make empty accusations about my not knowing what a word means because you disagree with how i used it.

chief
08-16-2012, 11:50
No, water is not free.

While tdoczi and pervy_sage were busy with their school-boy debate, somebody took their water. Nicely blended and packaged, the water is now being sold as Non-Partisan Spring Water.

Gray Blazer
08-16-2012, 12:10
Fair and unbalanced?

chief
08-16-2012, 12:17
Fair and unbalanced?Only the recommended daily requirements.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 12:18
intrinsic- belonging to a thing by its very nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature): the intrinsic value of agold ring.

our rights belong to us by our nature. you dont agree and i dont wish to debate the point, but dont make empty accusations about my not knowing what a word means because you disagree with how i used it.

You don't want to debate the point because you know the answer, and it falls to the fact that right to life is not intrinsic, it is a man made construct. You have the right to attempt to keep your life, as that is a natural function of your brain and body, but If someone wishes to deprive you of it, saying or thinking you have a right to it does not keep you from being separated from it. So follows liberty and the property that you seem to hold so dear.

Now if you speak from the context of rule of law and the constitution (which is where I was trying to speak originally and you rejected out of hand) magically that right to life becomes an intrinsic thing, bit still not of the human, but of the laws the humans created and agreed upon based on their intrinsic rights to reason, chose, and act.

Nicholson's character chose to work outside of the context of rule of law and the constitution, and the collective punished him for it because it was agreed it was not acceptable. He may have felt he had a right to do so, and intrinsically he was capable of making that choice. The collective (collective, collective, collective....love that word) thus chose to deny him the man made rights he had been bestowed as a member of the collective that he chose to take an oath to defend.

So tell me again how context is irrelevant?

Poking at someones spelling is classic sign of debate desperation.

I don't have to go on without you, because you are hooked and desperately trying to hold onto everything you believe that just went poof.

Keep trying.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 12:20
No, water is not free.

While tdoczi and pervy_sage were busy with their school-boy debate, somebody took their water. Nicely blended and packaged, the water is now being sold as Non-Partisan Spring Water.

That actually is fun, and I don't want to sound snarky (already in a heightened state, sorry) but what should I consider an adult debate?

chief
08-16-2012, 13:05
That actually is fun, and I don't want to sound snarky (already in a heightened state, sorry) but what should I consider an adult debate?
From the OP - "What's your take on clean fresh drinking water,and what it means to you?"

Maybe something along the lines of "I appreciate the costs of supplying clean and fresh drinking water because..." or "I prefer free drinking water from mountain springs because...".

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 13:30
That actually is fun, and I don't want to sound snarky (already in a heightened state, sorry) but what should I consider an adult debate?
From the OP - "What's your take on clean fresh drinking water,and what it means to you?"

Maybe something along the lines of "I appreciate the costs of supplying clean and fresh drinking water because..." or "I prefer free drinking water from mountain springs because...".

And a debate of the right to access vs. right to posess clean drinking water is school-boy?

Hmmm, nope I am not biting onto that one.

Gray Blazer
08-16-2012, 13:39
but what should I consider an adult debate?


How would you feel about an Obama type "Beer Summit".

Gray Blazer
08-16-2012, 13:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZx98jkKkP0&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active

This raises the question ... is there such a thing as a free breast examination? I would like to say yes (and I qualify it by saying I would offer it to consenting adults of the female gender). I guess that makes me a pervy sage, too. Dam.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 14:22
This raises the question ... is there such a thing as a free breast examination? I would like to say yes (and I qualify it by saying I would offer it to consenting adults of the female gender). I guess that makes me a pervy sage, too. Dam.

Certainly makes you a perv, the other part I can't say yet.

atmilkman
08-16-2012, 14:33
How would you feel about an Obama type "Beer Summit".
It's before my time but from what I've heard the how long does cheese last on the trail was a good one.

Toli
08-16-2012, 15:27
Certainly makes you a perv, the other part I can't say yet.

Hmmmm... Strange screen name you have there :-?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiraiya_(Naruto)

atraildreamer
08-16-2012, 15:47
Time to throw a little cold water on this heated discussion and lighten it up a bit! :)


Water jokes:


Glenn sends his son, Evan to bed. Five minutes later, Evan screams downstairs, “Dad! Can you get me a glass of water?” Glenn says, “No. You had your chance.”


After a minute Evan screams again, “Dad! Can you get me a glass of water?” Glenn says, “No. I told you, you had your chance. If you ask one more time, I’ll come up there and spank you.”

After a short silence, the father hears, “Dad! When you come up to spank me, can you bring me a glass or water?”

----------------
George went to visit his elderly cousin Darrel and while eating the breakfast of eggs and bacon prepared for him, he noticed a film-like substance on his plate. So he says, "Cus, are these plates clean?" Darrel replies, "Those plates are as clean as cold water can get them."

That afternoon, while eating the hamburgers Darrel made for lunch, he noticed many little black specks around the edge of his plate so again he asked, "Are you sure these plates are clean?" Without looking up from his burger Darrel says, "I told you those dishes are as clean as cold water can get them."

Later that day, they were on their way out to get dinner. As George was leaving the house, Darrel''s dog who was lying on the floor started to growl and would not let him pass. " Darrel, your dog won''t let me out." Without diverting his attention from the football game he was watching, Darrel shouted, "Coldwater, get out of the way!"

----------------
A physicist, biologist and a chemist were going to the ocean for the first time. The physicist saw the ocean and was fascinated by the waves. He said he wanted to do some research on the fluid dynamics of the waves and walked into the ocean. Obviously he was drowned and never returned.

The biologist said he wanted to do research on the flora and fauna inside the ocean and walked inside the ocean. He too, never returned.

The chemist waited for a long time and afterwards, wrote the observation, "The physicist and the biologist are soluble in ocean water".

---------------
What did the sink say to the water faucet?
You're a real drip.

----------

A man goes to his doctor because he’s been feeling very ill for days. The doctor gives him several sets of pills.

The doctor instructs; “Take the green pill with two big glasses of water when you get up. An hour later, take the white pill with another glass of water. Take the blue pill with a big glass of water after lunch. Mid afternoon, take the orange pill with plenty of water, and repeat that at dinner. Then, just before going to bed, take the red pill with several big glasses of water.”

The man is alarmed at huge volume of medicine he has been given to take, and nervously asks, “What’s the diagnosis? What’s wrong with me?”
The doctor says, “You’re dehydrated.”

--------------
WATER FOR THE KING

The King of a primitive but strategically-important third world nation visits the U.S. for the first time. As the King was being wined and dined by US officials in a four-star restaurant, his thirst was huge but he was distrustful of the water he was being served by the over-gratuitous staff. He quietly instructed his servant to go and fetch him a glass of water. Time and again, the King motioned his servant to fetch more water, and he would scamper off and return with yet another glass.

On the fifth trip, though, the servant returned empty-handed. “You wretched man, why have you returned without what I ask?” demanded the King. “I beg your forgiveness, O Illustrious One, stammered the servant. “When I returned to the well, a man was sitting upon it!”

--------------
Feel free to add jokes to this thread! :banana

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 15:50
[QUOTE=Toli;1324894]Hmmmm... Strange screen name you have there :-?... /QUOTE]

Yes, it is an homage, and I do use a lower case "p" as I can only strive toward the ideal of the Ero Sennin.

rocketsocks
08-16-2012, 15:55
Doxi is taking a leak off a little bridge in a wilderness area. Pervy walks up and starts to take a leak too. Doxi say's, "man this free flowing creek is cold", Pervy say's, "and deep too"..... but at least it is free! :D

Moral: those that can pee together, probably could hike together, "They Love Each other"

but will never agree on anything!

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 17:16
Doxi is taking a leak off a little bridge in a wilderness area. Pervy walks up and starts to take a leak too. Doxi say's, "man this free flowing creek is cold", Pervy say's, "and deep too"..... but at least it is free! :D

Moral: those that can pee together, probably could hike together, "They Love Each other"

but will never agree on anything!

You are too much. :)

I love everyone unconditionally, but I also hate everyone in their own special way. It is confusing sometimes.

And we do agree on many things, just not on how to argue it seems, or how to stop for that matter. (he will be back)

I used to do the peacemaker/bridge builder thing, pointing out common ground and trying to build consensus. Turns out all that does is get both sides pissed at you.

So lately, I just pull the pins and roll em in.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 17:38
You don't want to debate the point because you know the answer, and it falls to the fact that right to life is not intrinsic, it is a man made construct. You have the right to attempt to keep your life, as that is a natural function of your brain and body, but If someone wishes to deprive you of it, saying or thinking you have a right to it does not keep you from being separated from it. So follows liberty and the property that you seem to hold so dear.

Now if you speak from the context of rule of law and the constitution (which is where I was trying to speak originally and you rejected out of hand) magically that right to life becomes an intrinsic thing, bit still not of the human, but of the laws the humans created and agreed upon based on their intrinsic rights to reason, chose, and act.

Nicholson's character chose to work outside of the context of rule of law and the constitution, and the collective punished him for it because it was agreed it was not acceptable. He may have felt he had a right to do so, and intrinsically he was capable of making that choice. The collective (collective, collective, collective....love that word) thus chose to deny him the man made rights he had been bestowed as a member of the collective that he chose to take an oath to defend.

So tell me again how context is irrelevant?

Poking at someones spelling is classic sign of debate desperation.

I don't have to go on without you, because you are hooked and desperately trying to hold onto everything you believe that just went poof.

Keep trying.


i only point out stupid things like spelling because you do it.

you miss my point yet again. i bring up nicholson's "youre god damn right i did" because like him, you unwittingly were provoked into saying what i have been trying to get you to say for a week. so good job. sure, no one is throwing you in jail for saying it, but still... i actually give you credit for at least being able to own it.

Hairbear
08-16-2012, 18:06
gentlemen please its getting too personal,why not shake hands and take a well deserved break.you both make good points,and i have learned from both sides.your passions are plain to see,and there is honor on both sides.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 18:16
gentlemen please its getting too personal,why not shake hands and take a well deserved break.you both make good points,and i have learned from both sides.your passions are plain to see,and there is honor on both sides.

i'm done and if you notice i have not made a post relevant to the debate that was going on in 24 hours give or take. i just wasnt willing to let someone claim i wrongfully brought the declaration of independence into the discussion when it was them who first did so. now that weve cleared that up, as well as the fact i do know what intrinsic means and exactly how to spell precedent, i am truly done. i reserve the right to change this if i am again accused of doing something i did not do.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 18:53
Wow, I think he finally popped a gasket?

Realy, yu ar goin wit speling erors 2 bus me on? Tha maks such a defrence 2 da argumint...realy.

And can someone tell me what thing he "made" me say that has given him such an erection. He is acting like he found a commie in his closet and wants to show daddy and get patted on the head for it.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 19:34
Wait, I'm a little slow after work...

Did he just equate me to a murderer? Seriously?

Wow...I mean really, wow.

No joking around, did I read that right?

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 19:44
i only point out stupid things like spelling because you do it.

you miss my point yet again. i bring up nicholson's "youre god damn right i did" because like him, you unwittingly were provoked into saying what i have been trying to get you to say for a week. so good job. sure, no one is throwing you in jail for saying it, but still... i actually give you credit for at least being able to own it.


Unwittingly you say. That is like getting a catholic priest to talk about God, then pointing at him and saying "See, see, he believes in God."

If you had asked outright from the start instead of plotting an elaborately foolish trap, I woulda just said so. You seem to be proud of getting me to say something I would have been happy to tell you if you had asked.

Bravo, you've uncovered...absolutely nothing but your own silliness and paranoia about...what?

And I can tell from your tone you think I should be in jail for what I said. So much for that intrinsic right to speech...oh wait, there isn't one. Call the press!!!

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 19:46
gentlemen please its getting too personal,why not shake hands and take a well deserved break.you both make good points,and i have learned from both sides.your passions are plain to see,and there is honor on both sides.


No, no honor. That would be another human construct that would have to be mutually agreed upon, and he has obviously chosen not too.

Fine line between smack talk and just being spiteful, guess who crossed it first.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 20:18
Unwittingly you say. That is like getting a catholic priest to talk about God, then pointing at him and saying "See, see, he believes in God."

If you had asked outright from the start instead of plotting an elaborately foolish trap, I woulda just said so. You seem to be proud of getting me to say something I would have been happy to tell you if you had asked.

Bravo, you've uncovered...absolutely nothing but your own silliness and paranoia about...what?

And I can tell from your tone you think I should be in jail for what I said. So much for that intrinsic right to speech...oh wait, there isn't one. Call the press!!!


i stated early on exactly what i thought your position was. you denied it, then a week later restated exactly what i said, only in your own words when it suited your argument for the moment. go back read from the beginning. and no, it has nothing to do with you being a murderer. its amazing how you dont understand the few good men reference (which again, let me just get out of the way now, is a path you started, not me). lets just say i may not be able to handle the truth according to you. i'll lay that aside for now and just say i'd rather be tom cruise in that argument any day.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 20:56
i stated early on exactly what i thought your position was. you denied it, then a week later restated exactly what i said, only in your own words when it suited your argument for the moment. go back read from the beginning. and no, it has nothing to do with you being a murderer. its amazing how you dont understand the few good men reference (which again, let me just get out of the way now, is a path you started, not me). lets just say i may not be able to handle the truth according to you. i'll lay that aside for now and just say i'd rather be tom cruise in that argument any day.


I do understand the reference, quite well, and how you have equated my behavior with that character. If I chose to use a reference for dramatic flair of my point, it is on my terms. You associated what you perceived as my behavior to the behavior of the character directly, thus associating my behavior with that of a murderer. You don't get that so it is pointless to argue. Don't call a red ball on me and think I'm gonna lie down though.

The worst I ever remotely associated you with (and never directly) is Bill Reilly whom I respect and would love to debate and learn from, but you definitely aren't acting anything like Bill Reilly.

If you can't take a little smack talk during the game, you shouldn't be playing. You certainly have demonstrated you are an amateur when it comes to it as you jumped the line by a mile. Still lmao at the spelling thing.... spelling...HA!

Next point...

I denied nothing. And now we are back to context which you love so much. Again, if you had agreed from the onset concerning frame of reference and context, you would have gotten to your answer sooner rather than playing some self gratifying game which was only evident to you.

I wasn't denying you some hidden truth about myself, I was attempting to stay within a context everyone here would likely understand, that of rule of law and the constitution. If I am guilty of anything, it is misinterpreting your ambiguous intentions for context, which you repeatedly refused to agree upon and denied were relevant. Obviously context is relevant. Once you insisted on a universal context, then it was easy for me to derive a defining statement, develop an argument and come to a logical conclusion as to the level of its veracity (you know, thinking) the results of which apparently scared you. Sorry for that. Didn't mean to damage your tender brain.


Try being the irresistible force for a change rather than the immovable object. You get to see so much more of the world.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 21:08
Once you insisted on a universal context, then it was easy for me to derive a defining statement, develop an argument and come to a logical conclusion as to the level of its veracity (you know, thinking) the results of which apparently scared you. Sorry for that. Didn't mean to damage your tender brain.


you really think you said something to me that ive never heard before dont you? thats probably the most priceless part, especially considering i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not.

its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 22:02
you really think you said something to me that ive never heard before dont you? thats probably the most priceless part, especially considering i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not.

its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

I don't really know anything about you, nor care to, nor do you really know anything about me, because there is no means to verify whether either of us has been honest. Just a tiny fact. Even if I say my eyes are green, you can't see them. You may have told me what you thought I was (I still haven't found that actual statement yet), but that is irrelevant as no means of verification exist. I might be a really good liar. I might be telling you what you want to hear to expose your weak points and crappy logic (not hard to do it seems).

Since you work from the context that context is irrelevant, there can be no debate between us, so everything we've attempted to debate relative to each other is pointless. Our arguments can only stand within themselves.

And you still are demonstrating (truthfully or not) that you don't have a grasp on the meaning of intrinsic. I know it's a tough one, but you'll get it sooner or later.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 22:25
I don't really know anything about you, nor care to, nor do you really know anything about me, because there is no means to verify whether either of us has been honest. Just a tiny fact. Even if I say my eyes are green, you can't see them. You may have told me what you thought I was (I still haven't found that actual statement yet), but that is irrelevant as no means of verification exist. I might be a really good liar. I might be telling you what you want to hear to expose your weak points and crappy logic (not hard to do it seems).

Since you work from the context that context is irrelevant, there can be no debate between us, so everything we've attempted to debate relative to each other is pointless. Our arguments can only stand within themselves.

And you still are demonstrating (truthfully or not) that you don't have a grasp on the meaning of intrinsic. I know it's a tough one, but you'll get it sooner or later.

perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 22:30
[QUOTE=tdoczi;1325027]... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 22:32
perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.


Very good...maybe tomorrow we'll work on your logic.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 22:46
[QUOTE=tdoczi;1325027]... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

on this youve got me, my point is not nor ever was relative to anything to do with the OP. you decided it was ok to bash a school of thought you figured no one who was listening would care if you bashed. i was listening. i cared. i got you to state plainly your true colors. the end.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 22:52
its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

Well, from my perspective, the metaphor is more like, "hey your eyes are green." I say, yeah, they look green because you are wearing green tinted glasses. They actually aren't. Take them off and then tell me what color they are." And you say, "No, that is irrelevant." And I say, ok, in that context, my eyes are green." And you get to say "ha, see I knew it, they are green." At which point I stare at you funny.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 22:57
Well, from my perspective, the metaphor is more like, "hey your eyes are green." I say, yeah, they look green because you are wearing green tinted glasses. They actually aren't. Take them off and then tell me what color they are." And you say, "No, that is irrelevant." And I say, ok, in that context, my eyes are green." And you get to say "ha, see I knew it, they are green." At which point I stare at you funny.

but you left out the part where you then tell me how earth shattering it must be for me to realize a person can have green eyes, which was the point of my metaphor. i was conceding the part about why your eyes were not green and then later green, as it was not the point i was making.

again, with that intrinsic difficulty of yours.

pervy_sage
08-16-2012, 23:00
[QUOTE=tdoczi;1325027]... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

on this youve got me, my point is not nor ever was relative to anything to do with the OP. you decided it was ok to bash a school of thought you figured no one who was listening would care if you bashed. i was listening. i cared. i got you to state plainly your true colors. the end.

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

tdoczi
08-16-2012, 23:05
[QUOTE=tdoczi:1325060]

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

no, it wasnt personal (as you correctly pointed out, we dont know each other) and i tried my best to at least do it within the relevant context.

lunchbx
08-17-2012, 00:57
Is water free? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 04:53
perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.


Very good...maybe tomorrow we'll work on your logic.

This gave me a Chuckle, what a great way to start my day....right on men! nice to see some progress. Happy Friday :)


"Hey bar tend"

"what'll it be stranger"?

"I'll have a pervey sage with a dash of tdoczi"

"never heard of it", what's in it"?

"I think it starts with water, but I can't be sure"

" Wa Water!....we don't do water"

"ok...skip the water" prolly don't need that anyway

:D

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 05:22
[QUOTE=tdoczi:1325060]

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

no, it wasnt personal (as you correctly pointed out, we dont know each other) and i tried my best to at least do it within the relevant context.

Do what exactly. If it was to get me to apologize for a bad attempt at humor, then you wasted the time of many people. That could have been done in one sentence.

If it was to expose me as being something other than what I wish to portrait myself as within this forum, then you wasted your time as well. That, like you attemped to reference with your poorly chosen Nicholas quote, only happens face to face when there is only emotion and reaction. I had plenty of time to contemplate and form whatever responses I chose to offer for your game, so really you accomplished nothing productive.

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 05:34
Sage, what up G, I see you have wasted no time, glad to see it. I've contacted Guinness books, and have them on standup, (oops stand by), they said and old couple from Norway have the longest running argument, but that your in a close second.....C'mon lets really give it hell today, I'm lookin for a book deal here....don't let me down. And since you got up bright eyed and bushy tailed this mouning, you get a additional 4 Argue points. I'll bet todozi sleeps late on the trail too, hehe:D

moytoy
08-17-2012, 06:07
WB has two long running debates going at the same time. Life is good!

tdoczi
08-17-2012, 06:08
[QUOTE=tdoczi:1325071]

Do what exactly. If it was to get me to apologize for a bad attempt at humor, then you wasted the time of many people. That could have been done in one sentence.

If it was to expose me as being something other than what I wish to portrait myself as within this forum, then you wasted your time as well. That, like you attemped to reference with your poorly chosen Nicholas quote, only happens face to face when there is only emotion and reaction. I had plenty of time to contemplate and form whatever responses I chose to offer for your game, so really you accomplished nothing productive.


call it an intellectual exercise then, practice, whatever you want. i appreciate the apology, i should have said that sooner.

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 06:33
So has the universe been restored? if so Free water for everyone....I'm buyin. Come over to the cafe, the pool is full, drink all you's want! :)

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 08:50
So has the universe been restored? if so Free water for everyone....I'm buyin. Come over to the cafe, the pool is full, drink all you's want! :)

Not quite...but almost (I hope).


call it an intellectual exercise then, practice, whatever you want. i appreciate the apology, i should have said that sooner.

That is all my original post was referring too, an intellectual exercise I thought was amusing and relevant, not an all encompassing judgement on anyone's particular ideology. All ideologies have flaws, and debate is how we find and fix those flaws by challenging them (assuming one is willing). My libertarian coworker and I spar all the time, and we get on each others nerves all the time, but we still keep coming back to the table because we know it just makes us both better, so long as we are willing to learn and change from the experience. The particular argument I referenced I felt he was not budging and was clinging to a false point (IMO) in his particular flavor of libertarian ideology and I was challenging him on it, hence the divergence of reason and ideology comment, and I shake my head when confronted with that kind of stubbornness. At that point all you end up with is the infinite loop of "Is not, is too..." and so ends the argument (and that is what constitutes a school-boy debate btw). I never implied libertarian ideology was anything other than what it is, a flawed ideology, better than most, but still flawed. Never said it was stupid, never said it was fake, nothing. In fact, I never said anything directly about libertarian ideology, I was referring specifically to my libertarian friend, so it is only to him and his ideology that my comments apply, and he already knows what I think.

I appreciate your attempt to be an advocate, and will always consider apologizing for my BS if someone calls me out on it with a valid argument to the contrary. I thought I had demonstrated that with the rodeo clown apology. I have learned to be more aware of my phrasing, but then that just sucks the joy out of humor. I guess if I had put a wink emoticon after it, that would have made it ok.

---

I just realized I spent a week+ arguing with myself...how wonderful.

Ignore me, I'm just purging the bad energy.

tdoczi
08-17-2012, 09:24
That is all my original post was referring too, an intellectual exercise I thought was amusing and relevant, not an all encompassing judgement on anyone's particular ideology. All ideologies have flaws, and debate is how we find and fix those flaws by challenging them (assuming one is willing).

if anything, what i initially was trying to point out was that the fixes have as many flaws as what they are trying to fix. flaws are natural and unavoidable, the pursuit of perfection is unrealistic. part of the appeal of libertarianism to me is that it acknowledges this and accepts this and then asks what is the most fair way to get as close to perfection as possible. the other common mainstream political ideas of today hyperfocus on fixing the problem that is the flavor of the month and say to hell with everything else. an ever changing context if you will. that may give the allusion of solving whatever it is someone like chuck schumer or michael bloomberg is all bent out of shape about today, but brings us nowhere near closer to a perfect society because of all the consequences of the changes they refuse to see. libertarianism accepts that failure is natural and some need to be allowed to fail in order for anyone to succeed. we can not all be above average.

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 09:46
Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 10:34
Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.

You are welcome too. Apparently I've been preaching to the choir this whole time anyway.


if anything, what i initially was trying to point out was that the fixes have as many flaws as what they are trying to fix. flaws are natural and unavoidable, the pursuit of perfection is unrealistic. part of the appeal of libertarianism to me is that it acknowledges this and accepts this and then asks what is the most fair way to get as close to perfection as possible. the other common mainstream political ideas of today hyperfocus on fixing the problem that is the flavor of the month and say to hell with everything else. an ever changing context if you will. that may give the allusion of solving whatever it is someone like chuck schumer or michael bloomberg is all bent out of shape about today, but brings us nowhere near closer to a perfect society because of all the consequences of the changes they refuse to see. libertarianism accepts that failure is natural and some need to be allowed to fail in order for anyone to succeed. we can not all be above average.

Trouble is, if the ideology you are working from isn't sound, then everything that flows from it is exponentially flawed with the size of problem confronting it. Like a house on a crooked foundation, the bigger the house the more likely it will topple. But you already know that.

(cool, a real debate...huzzah!!)

The problem I have with most political ideologies is the emphasis on position rather than method. Once a political position is taken, it becomes nearly immovable. The group always seems more than happy to cannibalize an individual who tries to change the core positions in an ideology. You are correct in that ideology can't actually fix problems.

The other problem with ideology is the apparent need to take the extreme position when it comes to those human constructs of rights. It is either a welfare state or survival of the fittest. I don't care for either extreme.

Yes, people will fail, but I can't fathom how in this world and this time given the capacity we have in technology and understanding we can justify letting them fail to the point of abject poverty and death and still call ourselves civilized.

Another failing is that ideology almost forces contradiction in ones behavior.

Lets take our favorite example, property. In most ideologies, you are bestowed the right to have and keep it, which includes protecting it. For some that also includes killing anyone who might chose to take it. That right there shows the limitation of the ideology. It takes a position, and excludes the big picture and root cause of an act of another, and only defines how one is permitted to deal with it. Like you said, fixes the immediate problem and to hell with everything else. Now one person is dead, and the other has to live with taking a life. Neither is a desirable outcome for the individual. If the one is lucky, they can wrap themselves up in their ideology so they can sleep at night. I personally couldn't do that, and worry about anyone who could honestly say they would.

Which brings us to method. Scientific method (no, not Scientology, don't even go there) in fact, which if implemented correctly is devoid of position and context. It lets us drive to the root cause of a situation and derive the why that is mostly neglected in the framework of many ideologies.

In the example above, it would answer why did that person decide to risk his life to steal from another. Was there an alternative choice? Why did he not take it? Once those questions are answered, it would permit creating a humane solution to reduce, if not completely solve either individual from being placed into that undesirable position again.

Problem is, we humans can't even get that right, or else everyone would agree on climate change and evolution.

Gray Blazer
08-17-2012, 10:45
Apparently I've been preaching to the choir this whole time anyway.





Don't count on that. You are a good debater and I could never hope to keep up (even if I am a pervert) but you assume a lot (I am prolly more politically aligned with TDCZ, but that does not mean we can't get along and have a good debate).

BTW, you would not kill someone who takes your property? Could you tell me exactly where you live? :eek:

tdoczi
08-17-2012, 10:48
The problem I have with most political ideologies is the emphasis on position rather than method. Once a political position is taken, it becomes nearly immovable. The group always seems more than happy to cannibalize an individual who tries to change the core positions in an ideology. You are correct in that ideology can't actually fix problems.



**NOTHING** can fix the problems, only trade the problems for others. you seem to think if we just keep changing and evolving we can fix it all by being un-ideological. this is precisely the sort of thinking i object to. i'd rather know where i stand and then decide how to proceed from there without fear of the rules of the game changing midway through. does this mean i or anyone else is going to have a perfect pain free existence and we will all live to the exact same age and none of us will die a horrible painful death? no. my question is- so what? let it go.

and this is now becoming, through my own fault that which i was trying to avoid, something that is purely political (or at least philosophical) and removed from any context. i'm going to do my best to discontinue this.

chief
08-17-2012, 11:24
And a debate of the right to access vs. right to posess clean drinking water is school-boy?

Hmmm, nope I am not biting onto that one.Except the so called debate quickly turned into a pissing contest and that is decidedly school-boy. Major FAIL on both sides.

tdoczi
08-17-2012, 11:26
Except the so called debate quickly turned into a pissing contest and that is decidedly school-boy. Major FAIL on both sides.

i sense a debate about what a debate is coming. i will sit that one out.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 11:37
i sense a debate about what a debate is coming. i will sit that one out.

I thought about it, but not worth my time. Pass.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 11:39
Now back to something worthwhile...


**NOTHING** can fix the problems, only trade the problems for others. you seem to think if we just keep changing and evolving we can fix it all by being un-ideological. this is precisely the sort of thinking i object to. i'd rather know where i stand and then decide how to proceed from there without fear of the rules of the game changing midway through. does this mean i or anyone else is going to have a perfect pain free existence and we will all live to the exact same age and none of us will die a horrible painful death? no. my question is- so what? let it go.

and this is now becoming, through my own fault that which i was trying to avoid, something that is purely political (or at least philosophical) and removed from any context. i'm going to do my best to discontinue this.

You are such a sour puss. Lighten up.

You are and have been welcome to remove yourself from the discussion at any time. You weren't the OP, and don't really have the means to discontinue anything beyond your own participation. If you don't wish me to rebut or respond to your posts herein, stop posting. I sure ain't got a gun to your head.

By name and definition, this is a forum - a place where ideas and views can be exchanged. Philosophy, and the subset of politics I am fairly certain fall within that definition.

Where did you think you were, Disneyland?

To argue the point you espoused, regardless if you wish to participate or not, I am saying ideology is rigid and does not easily accommodate the changing world or our changing lives. It may be a foundation to work from on an individual level and for the lifespan of an individual, but it can't handle every event that comes along nor will it be applicable much beyond the generation that developed it. The better mousetrap (in peoples minds anyway) inevitably comes along.

A sound method of dealing with change and the problems that arise from change is a supplement to a good set of ideals. They work together.

Scientific method is devoid of humanity. If we went with that alone, then we would let people starve in favor of survival of the fittest. Not my idea of acceptable. Ideology tempers pure science, and together it lets us move forward, imperfectly, but forward.

Having a laissez-faire ideology just because nothing stays fixed and all problems don't magically go away is just going back to survival of the fittest. Not acceptable IMO. Like I said, if you don't want to participate, there's the door. If you aren't part of the solution...yada yada yada.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 11:45
So what was the other long thread? I've been a bit occupied.

atmilkman
08-17-2012, 11:58
Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.
Man socks that's deep. Here I thought "shakin' like a dog *****t*n' peach seeds" was kinda profound.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 12:09
Man socks that's deep. Here I thought "shakin' like a dog *****t*n' peach seeds" was kinda profound.

I can only dream of having that level of poeticism someday.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 13:11
Just been informed I'm skirting the edges of inappropriate discussion topics. If this is true, I hope the Mods will refrain flushing this thread down the toilet because of my ignorance. Wish someone would have mentioned that sooner.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Sailing_Faith
08-17-2012, 13:17
Thoughts on water;

I like to drink water.

My favorite time to drink water is when I am thirsty.

I prefer my water not be warm....

Feral Bill
08-17-2012, 14:51
Now that we are back on track: Water is not free. It is trapped in a never ending cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 15:04
Ok, Let me try again. Water is free because it goes wherever it wants whenever it wants, and all life depends on it to exist. Not even the mountains, or the sky above can resist its influence.

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 15:16
Yes, this is so much better...

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 16:32
Well it turns out mama was right, water is free....free to flow, free to combine, free to scour, free to saturate us if our roofs are ill....and so are we..free to purchase it, if we wish.

Rasty
08-17-2012, 16:35
Just been informed I'm skirting the edges of inappropriate discussion topics. If this is true, I hope the Mods will refrain flushing this thread down the toilet because of my ignorance. Wish someone would have mentioned that sooner.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

I guess we could have said something, but it would have spoiled the fun of a debate.:)

Rasty
08-17-2012, 16:42
Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.

Mannheim?:-?

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 16:46
Mannheim?:-?Knight over bishop to Q-3

Truth be told , I pirated and plagerized most all of that, except the ghoulish melding of Bolshevism, without warn, that little jewel was all mine...could you tell.:rolleyes::D

Hairbear
08-17-2012, 17:01
[QUOTE=rocketsocks;1325160]Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.[/QUO now your sounding like thoreau himself good job........

Rasty
08-17-2012, 17:02
Knight over bishop to Q-3

Truth be told , I pirated and plagerized most all of that, except the ghoulish melding of Bolshevism, without warn, that little jewel was all mine...could you tell.:rolleyes::D

I kind of thought it was a mind-meld!

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 17:07
I kind of thought it was a mind-meld!Yes, unless your a master manipulator of molten metal, and throw it in the fiery furnace and melt it down to liquid iron....wait, what forum is this?...cafe'?....dang, my bad.

rocketsocks
08-17-2012, 17:08
[QUOTE=rocketsocks;1325160]Ideology is the product of man's need for imposing intellectualism and order. Often these Ideologies arise out of crisis when the prevailing thoughts become unacceptable, and without exception meld into a kinda of ghoulish Bolshevism, and not without warn.

oops sorry, just thought i'd throw my hat in the ring.[/QUO now your sounding like thoreau himself good job........Thanks Hairbear...I can type, hehe;)

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 17:35
Just been informed I'm skirting the edges of inappropriate discussion topics. If this is true, I hope the Mods will refrain flushing this thread down the toilet because of my ignorance. Wish someone would have mentioned that sooner.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

I guess we could have said something, but it would have spoiled the fun of a debate.:)

Sure, hang the new guy out there. Bunch of sadists ya are. Is it really that boring on here?

My fault for assuming an open forum was an open forum...and not reading the U.A.

I really was gonna get back around to topic, but kept getting distracted by...um...something...something...ah well it wasn't important.

Shall we discuss is the sky blue next?

atmilkman
08-17-2012, 18:11
Shall we discuss is the sky blue next?
How about you start out by saying the moon is not made of cheese and then I'll jump in and say "oh yes it is".

Rasty
08-17-2012, 19:10
Sure, hang the new guy out there. Bunch of sadists ya are. Is it really that boring on here?

My fault for assuming an open forum was an open forum...and not reading the U.A.

I really was gonna get back around to topic, but kept getting distracted by...um...something...something...ah well it wasn't important.

Shall we discuss is the sky blue next?

Or is a Frog's butt watertight?

pervy_sage
08-17-2012, 19:24
Shall we discuss is the sky blue next?
How about you start out by saying the moon is not made of cheese and then I'll jump in and say "oh yes it is".

Ya know, I have this libertarian friend and we had a very lively, educational and mutually agreeable debate on who owns the moon...

TD55
08-17-2012, 22:46
I really was gonna get back around to topic, but kept getting distracted by...um...something...something...


Were it something shiny? Don't worry, that happens a lot here.

tdoczi
08-17-2012, 22:57
Well it turns out mama was right, water is free....free to flow, free to combine, free to scour, free to saturate us if our roofs are ill....and so are we..free to purchase it, if we wish.

now, is it free because of intrinsic rights or are they just a manmade construct? i suppose it depends on context.