ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board


Shooting "I Go Wild" January 1995
Templo de San Lázaro, La Candelaria. México City, D.F.
Premier Appearance of this photo, courtesy of Fernando Aceves to Rocks Off - Gracias Fernando!!

WEBRADIO CHANNELS:
[Ch1: Bill German's Stones Zone] [Ch2: British Invasion] [Ch3: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch4: Random Sike-ay-delia]


[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [IORR TOUR SCHEDULE] [LICKS TOUR EN ESPAÑOL] [SETLISTS 62-99] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: FREE Concert in LA!? Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5
12-30-02 12:19 PM
littleredrooster Come to Oregon and see all the baby trees flourishing in our clearcut areas!
It is a renewable resource!!
12-30-02 12:33 PM
nankerphelge Sparks you are about the biggest idiot I've seen here in some time. You come in ripping anyone with a conservative bent as war mongering, pollution loving and C&W types? Your head is so far up you ass you should be worried about colo-rectal warming rather than global warming.

In fact, I think the average temperature on earth would drop a few degrees if you'd shut that gaping fucking hole just below your nose!
12-30-02 12:33 PM
Maxlugar I can't believe he came at you like that Roostah.

It's funny how some of these Green Peace types can not accept another opinion on these matters.

The fact is, Global Warming has not only NOT be proven real but it has not be proven that man is doing it.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11308

Maybe it is happening and maybe we can stop it.

Who knows. Science hasn't gotten there yet.

But its funny how the mere suggestion that this is not a done deal makes certain people squeal like stuck piglets
12-30-02 12:41 PM
sasca Jesus, some of you right-wingers aren't too bright. You were the ones who started the discussion about global-warming, then you criticise Sparks for replying? Ignore them, Sparks, they post mainly to show one another how Outrageous they can be, they couldn't give a damn about serious discussions.
[Edited by sasca]
12-30-02 12:50 PM
Maxlugar It wasn't an issue of who brought it up first, brainiac.

The issue has become, why are leftist like yourself so intolerant of other people's views on this topic?

Stop being so close minded.
12-30-02 12:55 PM
nankerphelge sasca, in case no one told you recently, you're a dipshit too!

This "right winger" never complained about Sparks' reply to the global warming issue. Had he made his case without all the pointed attackes, he (like most everyone that expresses a view here) would probably have been left alone.

But he didn't -- he used the opportunity to take a few pot shots -- as ignorant as they are.
Pollution loving?
War mongering?
Should find us on C&W boards?

Maybe you two are on the buddy system for grey matter -- who's got the brain today??
12-30-02 12:58 PM
sasca Actually, his first post was restrained considering the idiocy spouted by some of you. After you bitched at him, he was naturally less restrained.
12-30-02 01:03 PM
Maxlugar Nanky, aren't you insulted when someone says we are not "the type" to be on a Rolling Stones board?

His kind are so self centered that they don't even see there are people that have different opinions on the world and love the Stones.

How egotistical is that?

And I think that comment about C&W fans borders bigotry.
[Edited by Maxlugar]
12-30-02 01:17 PM
nankerphelge Border! Hell -- I'd say that it was dead on!

I have no problem that Sparks thinks the global warming is real. Maybe it is.

But I have a big problem when someone comes here and starts shooting his mouth off about me, and the legitimacy of what I believe, and even whether I should be a Stones fan!

I don't care if he wants to debate issues -- have at it. But don't attack people for their political alignment (or vocation) alone, with absolutely no regard for what they believe as an individual. And worse yet, then he demonizes anyone if the beliefs they hold are contrary to his!



12-30-02 01:21 PM
Maxlugar Yeah frig' 'em!

They aint takin' away the Stones from ME! EVER!

By the way, With Josh gone I'll be soon taking the lead in posts.

Let the Tree Huggers take THAT away!

Fuck Yup!

MACKSEE!
[Edited by Maxlugar]
12-30-02 01:24 PM
Soul Survivor 100 posts
12-30-02 02:43 PM
sasca Alright, I agree that c+w should not be damned. I like some c+w. Some Stones songs are c+w.
12-30-02 02:45 PM
Monkey Woman A few careful, tentative comments on this rapidly-going-to-the-drain thread, if I may.

To begin with, I defend sparksWILLfly right to his/her opinions like I defend Maxlugar's right to believe the sources he wants to believe, as long as it's about beliefs and opinions. If Sparks chooses to retaliate even more viciously to vicious attacks, he/she will obviously draw fire. That's the wages of flame war

And when it comes to facts, not beliefs, I strongly repeat that it's important to know one's sources. The link Maxlugar posted above is on the website of the Heartland Institute, an activist organization with a certain political agenda. According to their own mission statement:

"Heartland's mission is to help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people. Such ideas include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government."

Don't get me wrong: I think every citizen has the right to agree or not to such extreme right-wing views.
But if you agree with them, you must also be aware that the "market-based approaches" are intended to benefit the industries (big or small), not the earth, sea and trees, who can make no money of their own and don't even have a right to vote.
So there IS biases in comments from Heartland and other such pro-business lobbyists. Of course, I'm aware there are biases too in Greenpeace or NDRC articles too. That's why I warmly support one of Sparks's first statements: if you really want to make your own opinion, read some independant research papers like Science (US) or Nature (UK). They have no link to conservationists or to forest and oil industries! Or magazines like Natural History or Scientific American, which are an easier read while still retaining scientific integrity.

Here, from instance, the Heartland institute manages to present research facts with a subtle spin to make the global warming look like a hypothesis. "Still No Consensus on Global Warming Science": it looks like scientist cannot even agree on what is really happening in the biosphere. But if you read carefully, you realize that "no consensus" refers really to the methods used to evaluate the modifications in the said biosphere and the long-term evolution of these phenomenons.
In fact, all serious scientists recognize that there are important modifications today in the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, in the direction of streams and air-streams, plus thinning of the ozone layer and melting of glaciers and icecaps. The term "global warming" has been used by scientists as a useful tag for all this array of observations (and perhaps overused by journalists and conservationists), but warming is only a part of it. On the long term, we may see warming in parts of the globe and colder climate in others. When the average sea and air temperature go up, the North Pole ice cap begins to melt, releasing more cold water in northern Atlantic and Pacific, so for a time the northern hemisphere may get colder while the tropics get warmer.

The specialists in ecology, climatology or sea biology don't always agree on all points because that's how research works: by arguing and confronting ideas, trying to look at raw data from different points of view. It's a trial and error process, and what sticks after lots of tests is eventually taken as the best approximation for a complex reality.

So there's nothing wrong IMO w/ doing a free concert to "raise awareness of global warming". It IS a real issue, even if not a clear cut one.
And Keith has never made a secret of his concern about the kind of earth we're going to live to our kids. Or his kids, aniway
That said, I don't approve of hurling sh*t at other people's head as an insult, whatever their political opinion or lack of. Quality sh*t should be treated with respect and only hurled in a pure sense of fun or to make tasteful 'monkey' paintings. How can you disagree w/ that!

[End rant now. Back to inserting various unhealthy items in diverse body orifices in the name of free speech, rock 'n' roll and generally getting high for the fs*ck of of it. ]

"Serious matters should be treated lightly and light matters seriously. How else can we survive?"
12-30-02 02:49 PM
sasca
quote:
Monkey Woman wrote:

[End rant now. Back to inserting various unhealthy items in diverse body orifices in the name of free speech,


"Serious matters should be treated lightly and light matters seriously. How else can we survive?"



DARLING!
12-30-02 02:56 PM
Monkey Woman Thank you, sasca dear
And if someone can give me the origin of that saying, I'd be glad. I wonder whence it cam from???
12-30-02 03:17 PM
sparksWILLfly True, Rooster, all the OR forests are renewable now that the old growth has been eliminated -- that wasn't renewable.

Nanker should learn how to spell "attacks" before calling others idiots. The "pollution worshipers" was quoted directly from a previous post. The "war mongering" wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but there have been plenty of previous posts, even entire threads, touting the virtues of war. Hot air? Count the number of stupid posts you make. That and the fact that you make a living spouting hot air demonstrates your hypocrisy. The accusation of bigotry by you and Max is equally without grounds. To suggest that listeners of country western tend to share a political ideology doesn't make one a bigot. Try looking the term up. Shouldn't be too hard for you to find the "B's" -- they're near the beginning of the alphabet (and "attacks" will be under the "A's", at the very beginning). No, bigotry is much more typical of your genre, but you don't have an entourage of media around, like your buddy Trent Lott, to catch you slipping up.

Monkey Woman -- very perceptive comments. You obviously have a good understanding of this particular issue, of special interest smoke-screens, and of how science works.

Sasca -- I didn't mean to put down any affection you have for C&W. Although I like country songs by the Stones, too (some of which are tongue in cheek, like "Far Away Eyes"), I'd still stick by the generalization that right-wingers are more likely to listen to C&W than to the Stones.
12-30-02 03:21 PM
sasca
quote:
sparksWILLfly wrote:


Sasca -- I didn't mean to put down any affection you have for C&W. Although I like country songs by the Stones, too (some of which are tongue in cheek, like "Far Away Eyes"), I'd still stick by the generalization that right-wingers are more likely to listen to C&W than to the Stones.




Oh, no offense taken. C+W is far from my favourite music style. I hope you're correct about right-wingers and the Stones.
12-30-02 03:31 PM
Maxlugar I don't care what the Heartland Institutes "Mission Statemen" says. Oh, that was a real evil and spooky Mission Statement wasn't it? I would take free market info before government info any time. You like government jobs, cheese or housing? Grade A stuff right there.

My point is that Global Friggin' Warming is not a fact, yet, and that there are other opinions out there. Typical liberal bullshit to try and discredit the source.

That article cites studys by the Annals of Glaciology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Functional Plant Biology and Texas A&M. Are all the studys that might have some connection to, oh horrors of horrors, a conservative group wrong?

I am of the belief that this is part earths living cycle and I do read about this stuff all the time. I also read where some of the proposed "fixes" to the environment do more harm than good. This country has come a long long way in the last hundred years but all you keep hearing is gloom and doom. Gee, you don't think these groups are making money off this do you? And all that faked science they go by is mind boggling. I love the one recently where "researchers" were caught planting hair samples of Lynx all over the place. Wonderfull science!

But being a liberal means never having to say you are sorry or wrong.

And I guess getting your info from the mainstream (Liberal) Media and groups like Earth First, Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Grean Peace is better? It's all an effort to get the USA to stop being so gosh darned productive so everyone else can catch up.

[Edited by Maxlugar]
12-30-02 03:38 PM
sasca
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:

But being a liberal means never having to say you are sorry or wrong.




Good God, you mean you have apologised to someone? Ah, well, at least you're often amusing. Those log cabin Republicans who say there is no evidence for global warming are often those who say there is no evidence for evolution, aren't they? There is a story that Galileo, after leaving the table on which he signed the recantation of his views of the earth revolving on its axis etc. murmured 'but still it turns'.
12-30-02 03:42 PM
Maxlugar Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions
and prejudices.

I see nothing wrong with the way we used Bigot.

Now Sasca, the Log Cabin Republicans are very much into Global Warming. They would like you to come over and get warm with them.

See Lance.

Oh and I'm always saying I'm sorry around here!

Maxy!

[Edited by Maxlugar]
12-30-02 03:54 PM
nankerphelge "Nanker should learn how to spell "attacks" before calling others idiots."

That's the best you got? Man are you pathetic!

"That and the fact that you make a living spouting hot air demonstrates your hypocrisy."

I don't make a living spouting hot air slick -- I do my job and I do it well. You know nothing about what I do -- is this another of your stereotypes -- all lawyers spout hot air? Until you need a lawyer -- then you'll be singing a different song.

"The accusation of bigotry by you and Max is equally without grounds. To suggest that listeners of country western tend to share a political ideology doesn't make one a bigot. Try looking the term up. Shouldn't be too hard for you to find the "B's" -- they're near the beginning of the alphabet (and "attacks" will be under the "A's", at the very beginning). No, bigotry is much more typical of your genre, but you don't have an entourage of media around, like your buddy Trent Lott, to catch you slipping up."

I think anyone reading this can come to their own conclusion. Bigotry -- maybe not racial -- but certainly a stereotyping of all based upon your misguided view of a few. Surprising considering your purported education -- maybe you aren't as smart as you think -- although you sure know your way around a dictionary -- isn't that impressive.


[Edited by nankerphelge]
12-30-02 04:53 PM
Monkey Woman
quote:
The "pollution worshipers" was quoted directly from a previous post.


SparksWILLfly, man, get your facts rights before posting. The "pollution worshippers" thing was MY feeble attempt at lightening the tone. No-one, I hope, took it seriously. Go back and read the post. Please.

quote:
Count the number of stupid posts you make... you make a living spouting hot air... bigotry is much more typical of your genre... your buddy Trent Lott...


Round and round and round it go! Sparks, I suggest a website for you:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
You will find useful advice as well as moral support

Now, Maxlugar. Nice try, Maxy my boy, to try and drag me in a flaming contest, ala sparskwillfly!
Seems you like it hot! But my answer is in what I've already posted. Go back, read my posts. Like I said, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and beliefs, but one must be careful not to mix beliefs with facts. Or the way some people put a spin on a scientific statement to make it seem to mean something else. And yes, I acknowledged the fact that conservationist groups have bias too! Why not? There are people that would have us believe that the best way to study whales is by hunting more whales! Just to clarify one little point:

quote:
I would take free market info before government info any time. You like government jobs, cheese or housing? Grade A stuff right there.


I agree. That's why I wasn't exponing the virtues of governement! (The same thing goes for "mainstream" medias, who are frequently not very liberal but just turning the way the wind is blowing.) I was talking about independant, controlled info. Especially about the importance of comparing the take of different lobby groups on the same info.
Papers published by Science or Nature come as well from privately funded research as of government funded research. Their way to achieve independance from both governments and private interests is in the evaluation of every paper before it's published, by a board of scientists from different background, to ensure A) the statements published are close to the facts observed and B) the research is really in the general interest and not only in those of a pressure group.

So, scientists are not little angels, they're not perfect, but they know a thing or two about making their right hand watch what their left hand is doing. And that's useful in the world we live in
12-30-02 05:54 PM
telecaster
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:

The issue has become, why are leftist like yourself so intolerant of other people's views on this topic?

Stop being so close minded.



Max: You are correct. BTW, there is more forest now in the
US than there was 100yrs ago.

NY has 30% more forest than 100 yrs ago.

Libs don't want anyone to know that
12-30-02 10:16 PM
littleredrooster
Fire and the insects have devoured the most timber in Oregon lately, because the shortsighted 'conservationists' have not allowed the useable materials to be saved and put to good use.
Even if there are no more OLD growth forests in Oregon as you claim (I have no source reference to dispute this)

How did old growth become OLD growth??

It certainly wasn't BORN 'OLD' was it??

No. it grew from the little seedlings that either metamorphosed through "evolution"
(OOPS! There's that Right wing, pollution loving, C & W listening, word that We could not possibly believe in!!)

OR, they were planted by people in a clear cut area to replace a RESOURCE that was USED and REPLENISHED!!!

It TOO will be 'Old' Growth IN THE FUTURE!!

And, although another subject: SALMON.

The goons put in place by the previous administration SLAUGHTERED millions of salmon just because they weren't 'WILD'.
Yeah, folks they were 'HATCHERY' fish!
Nurtured by your tax dollars' care and research only to be killed by the MILLIONS by government workers because they were not genetically 'PURE'!
WTF????!!!???
Yet, this same camp protects our 'OLD growth' forests??

I just don't understand it!
We all want the same thing.
Responsible use of what we consume.
12-31-02 08:00 AM
Maxlugar I had not heard about this Salmon Holocaust. I am outraged!

What, is this some kind of leftwing Fishlers List??!!

Oh and thanks for bringing up the old growth forest thingy. What a lot of arm chair "Greenies" don't know is that old growth forests are usually the part of the wilderness that has the least life. The trees get too tall and close together that no sunlight reaches the floor. Animals like deer graze on fresh young sprouts. The one thing you see alot of in the old parts of the woods is a shit load of dead tree upon dead tree. These dead trees turn into kindling for the next lucky lightning bolt. Then you see what happend in Arizona last year. As a hiker/ camper and yes HUNTER (Boo!) I see some pretty sick stretches of woods in the Adirondacks.

With proper management, the woods can be both a resource and a home for our critters. The old growth can be thined. Don't worry about the animals. They aint there. They are more likely on the edges of farms or in your garbage pails.

Maxy (George Washington Sears II, (Nesmuck) or Chief Bucketbelly depends on the mood)
12-31-02 11:36 AM
sparksWILLfly OK, I promise no more 'flaming' from my side and to let this rest henceforth, but I'd like to respond to some of the later points.

Max, I assure you that I'm not an armchair greenie -- I'm a professional greenie instead. Armchair greenies don't get info from bonafide scientific sources, but from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc., and I don't trust that any more than I trust a global warming report from a petroleum company. I won't get sucked into an anti-hunting argument, either. ...Don't do it myself, but it's fine with me when it's well managed, and I've revealed plenty of good bird hunting spots to my friends that do hunt. I've also proposed that opening a season on wild horses (believe it or not, there are really people who want to hunt them) would be an ideal solution to a major problem on western US ranges, but alas, they enjoy stronger federal protection than most native species. You sound like a concerned sportsman, so I tip my hat to you for that. You're quite right that deer prefer to forage at forest edges, but then there are a myriad of plants and animals that do live only in old-growth. It's unfortunate for the spotted owl that old-growth advocates chose that species to represent the value of old-growth, because it's made a lot of people hate spotted owls, and it's not the damned owl's fault. I'm sure that species was chosen, because cute, warm, fuzzy things get more attention than many of the other species that live only in old-growth. There's not as much public sentiment for, or even awareness of the existence of, species like red fir voles, marbled murrlets, or mosses or liverworts that only grow under old trees. Species dependent on old-growth may not be obvious, but they're there. I live and work in the desert, and residents around here have generally heard of most of the local desert wildlife -- kit foxes, bobcats, kangaroo rats -- but, except for coyotes, few people (even outdoor types) have seen any of them, even though they're not uncommon. Actually, I think we're talking past one another on the old-growth issue, because of different perspectives in the western and eatern US about what that is. From the definitions of old-growth that I'm familiar with (see below), there couldn't be more than a few relict old-growth stands left in the eastern US.

As for what constitutes a "renewable resource", Rooster, I suppose you could argue that it's all relative. In practice, renewability should occur on a time scale of a single human generation, or it's generally not considered renewable. Harvestable trees can easily grow (a couple of times) in that time frame, but old-growth forests have trees that are >800 years old. We do not manage anything on that kind of time scale, so once they're cut, they'll never be back. If we were to adopt a definition of renewability where time doesn't matter, a logical extension of your argument would be to claim that fossil fuel sources are renewable, but I don't think the oil companies would even make such a claim. By the way, yes, there are still several relict stands of old-growth left in OR -- OK, I admit I just wanted to give you shit about OR. There is more in WA, but still <5% of the original area. And, there's still a respectable amount in AK, but we're working on that, for example by subsidizing foreign companies to clearcut the Tongass Forest in SE AK. Salmon: Yes, I'm sorry, but I have to go along with the greenie view of the importance of at least trying to maintain genetic purity in wild salmon stocks. I don't recall the specific hatchery fish slaughter that you brought up, but I also don't doubt that it happened. I do know that escapees from farmed salmon (big nets out in places like Puget Sound) constitute a serious threat to wild salmon stocks. Hatchery fish are often fucked up genetically, especially anadromous species (those that start and end their lives in freshwater streams, but do all their growing in saltwater). At the same time, hatchery fish are essential to maintaining some fish stocks. I don't do hatchery work, but I know people who do, and it's a tricky science. And, with something as important as salmon (economically and otherwise), I just hope the Fish & Wildlife Service has some good scientists working on it. I don't know about you, but I find farmed salmon to taste like shit compared to wild ones. And, there's a big difference in desirability between salmon species -- trade ya' 5 chums for a single sockeye. I'd hate to see the day, although I fear we might, when genetic admixture and hybridization between wild fish and farmed or hatchery stock means we only have a generic salmon around. I commend you for bravery in being the first in this thread to bring up evolution. Even though my final graduate degree was in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, I suffer from shell shock when discussing the "E" word, as it usually brings the creationists out of the woodworks. Anyway Rooster, I think your final sentence might best sum up our different ideologies. Yes, I want responsible use of what we consume, but consumption should not be all there is to life; I'd like to see a little bit preserved for non-consumptive purposes, too. Even if you don't agree that we owe it to nature, please consider that we owe it to OUR future generations. Amen.

Sorry about the long-windedness -- enough of this shit. I'm watching some new Stones videos on New Year's Eve that Rooster just sent me! Thanks Rooster; you're a better friend and Stones fan than you are an environmetalist. I wish you all a globally warm and happy New Year!

12-31-02 11:44 AM
Maxlugar I wonder what Brian Fellow would think of all this.

"Kangaroo Rats? That sounds CRAZY!"

Have a great New Year Sparksy!

12-31-02 01:25 PM
Sir Stonesalot Well, I don't know about all that stuff.

I never liked salmon. They are stupid, and IMO taste bad. In fact, I almost never eat fish. Shell fish and mollusks excluded. Them I like.

Trees. Yeah, I guess I like trees. How else could we build tree forts if we didn't have trees to build them in? They also make good firewood.

In all seriousness, I'd like to see us use our resources better. But I also believe that we are higher on the food chain than all the other critters. The Tyranosaurus is extinct. I'm glad. Some things SHOULD die.

If some moss that lives only in old growth forests dies out...so what? It's MOSS. It's good for NOTHING. No one goes to a zoo to see moss. I don't know anyone who eats moss and actually WANTS too. We don't build houses out of it anymore. Any animal who depends on moss as it's main source of nutrition can either find something else to eat, or fucking die. How smart can the animal be if it eats MOSS? It's no damn good use to us.

The spotted owl. WhoopY. Ever seen spotted owl wing night at a local bar? Of course not. Owl tastes like shit. So who cares what happens to it? I don't care if my kid's kid's kid's kids know what an owl was. They'll all be playing Playstation 123. They will be playing games with virtual owls. You get bonus points if you build a highway over their nests.

I just wish you damn scientists can figure out a way to CONTROL the weather. Make it warm and sunny all the time. I'm from PA, and it really hurts my golf game to have a weather induced 3 month lay off every winter. Can't you fuckers make yourselves useful, and figure out how to make it so that I can play golf every day. I understand the need for rain, so can't you just make it rain during the night?

I mean come on. Put that science to good use!
12-31-02 01:35 PM
Maxlugar "...some moss that lives only in old growth forests dies out...so what? It's MOSS. It's good for NOTHING."

Damn straight pal.

And we all know what moss doesn't grow on, right?

Yup, A Rolling Stone!

MAXY BRINGS THE WHOLE THREAD AROUND TO THE BAND!

Fuck yup!

I'm:

|-M-| |-A-| |-X-| |-L-| |-U-| |-G-| |-A-| |-R-|!!!!

And I am.
12-31-02 02:19 PM
littleredrooster The hatchery Salmon are raised in captivity and released as fingerlings.
They then migrate throughout the Pacific Ocean to live or die in the same tough life as do the wild counterparts.
My vision of farmed salmon is that they are raised in pens like baby veal calfs.
Yes, the farmed ones do taste like shit (for the salmon lovers out there)
My question (as a non biologist) is that why did they kill the millions of hatchery fish that survived their Pacific lifespan competing with the wilds???
Is that genetic inferiority?
The hatchery fish existed because they were DERIVED from the genetic wild stock!
These poor devils were clubbed to death just as they were going to 'drop their load' so to speak! (maybe that's why it's so painful)
This would not even be an issue if our forefathers had not constructed the hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River.
The 'wilds' were sliced and diced into hors d'oveurs by their turbines!

The greatest irony is that these same dams on the Columbia River send their power to of all places Los Angeles!


This will be the source of power for the Stones audio, video and lighting as they take the stage for their free concert in LA this February!!

HOLY DICHOTOMY !!!

Our tree discussion can't find middle ground because the definition of renewable resource. True Old Growth won't return this generation, but our forest renewal will assure Old Growth for future generations
Preservation for future generations is what we want.

Happy New Year to you too SWF!

Remember the lyrics to 'Mixed Emotions'
If Mick and Keith can patch it up so can we!!

Life is a party, get out and strut!!!!
Not.. 'the world is a forest, lets get out and cut!'

I raise my glass of bubbly (authentic French I must say) and bite some Oregon salmon pate at the stroke of Midnight!
To you and yours!
I hope you reciprocate!

SAL the Rooostah!
[Edited by littleredrooster]
[Edited by littleredrooster]
[Edited by littleredrooster]
Page: 1 2 3 4 5