🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38EB37A8.FFB1982@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38E9DD0D.361F4681@clark.net>,
> > klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > > ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <925G4.1982$Oc2.121907@monger.newsread.com>,
> > > > russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> > > > > In article <8cae1b$6it$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
<ableamison@my-deja.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > }
> > > > > }Such as the answer to my question -- are the upper branches
of
> > the
> > > > > }Anacostia River in the Anacostia watershed or not? Geez, when
I
> > put
> > > > it
> > > > > }that way, it answers itself. No talk of soil conditions
required
> > > > here.
> > > > > }Yes or no?
> > > > >
> > > > > A branch of a river is by definition within its watershed.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you!
> > > >
> > > > So any development within the watershed would change the
capacity of
> > the
> > > > soil underneath it to absorb or slow rainwater.
> > >
> > > No. It's already impermeable to within about 99.2 percent of
concrete.
> > The
> > > remaining .06 percent could be vastly improved-upon with
stormwater
> > > catchments.
> > >
> > > > Any discussion of
> > > > the current state of soil there is irrelevant unless it takes
that
> > > > into account. That's all I wanted to say.
> > >
> > > If the soil is already as impermeable as concrete,replacing it
with
> > concrete
> > > will have no net effect on runoff volumes or speeds of downhill
flow
> > and
> > > flood channel impact.
> > >
> > > Soil conditions are _extremely_ germane to any argument.
> > >
> > > If the soil in question was a wetland atop an aquifer recharge
zone, I
> > would
> > > be behind you all of the way and your arguments might have merit.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Any more silly questions?
> > > >
> > > > If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that the silly
> > question
> > > > was in response to a previous silly answer.
> > >
> > > Two sillies don't make an intelligent. You're wasting our time and
> > yours
> > > with misapplied sophistries.
> > >
> > > If you have a point, make it, if it's debatable we'll debate it on
its
> > > merits. If it hasn't any merits, because it's _silly_ expect to
get
> > called
> > > on it. If having a silly argument called "silly" bothers you,
think
> > your
> > > proposal through and nobody will call it "silly". they may
continue to
> > > object, but at least it won't be for reasons that make people
laugh.
> >
> > Please see my response to Mr. Russotto's answer to my message.
> >
> > I simply do not believe that the area in question is 99.2 percent
the
> > impermeability of concrete all the way to the surface, or at least
that
> > this translates to 99.2 percent of the flow rate of concrete. Show
me a
> > system-wide flow rate that accounts for all flow from the surface
down
> > please.
>
> I don't suppose you're sufficiently familiar with the formats so as to
> knowledgeably request in which format I should provide this to you?
>
> Again, my advice is that you actually travel to the area in question
and
> _look_. Take a pointed stick and mark off gradations up to one foot
and
> record the diameter of the stick. Take a gradated measuring-cup of
water.
> Poke a hole in the ground on a nice dry day and pour the glass of
water into
> the hole. Measure how much water you put in there, and how long it
stands.
> Look at the side of the stick and see what sort of soils stick to it
to what
> depths.
>
> Repeat in about a dozen locations in the area in question.

You're the one making the assertion -- you do the research.

But at least you acknowledge that flow rates are the measure needed,
which implies that you did not support your argument earlier, which
makes your blaming me for not understanding it invalid.

>
> If you're talking about the field to the west of Md Route 28 (Layhill
Road)
> between Norbeck and Norwood Roads, if you can get the stick more than
six
> inches into the ground before hitting rock (on average) I will be just
about
> shocked. If it's got more than an inch of topsoil atop five inches of
clay
> and mixed basalt/quartz fragments (on average) I will be shocked.
>
> I have a very nice map of Maryland Geology for which we paid about
$3,000.00
> as part of a Radon Risk assessment, and I really don't feel like
sharing the
> engineers' livelihood nor my investment for free, but you can probably
get
> the same information off of one of th State department of the interior
sites
> for free. Or you can post a re-request sometime near the weekend and
_maybe_
> I will have time (I just took a new job and am no longer the mopey
king of
> excess leisure time) to do your research for you.

Just tell me where you got the 99.2% number. A quick citation will be
fine.

>
> To be brief, Georgia Avenue at almost all points north of the District
right
> out to Brookville MD is on the often-exposed ridgeline of a huge
basalt
> shield that sits right near the surface. It has multiple subridges,
also
> often exposed, also all very near the surface. Again, my advice is
that you
> go to the library. If you actually make me go to the trouble of
digging all
> of this up somly so that it cannot be said of me "he doesn't know what
he's
> talking about", you won't enjoy my presentation and if I should (once
again
> as usual) be shown to be right, frankly you will not enjoy my
presentation
> and will probably be licking your wounds for months and if you ever
had any
> credibility in any local political issue dealing with development or
roads,
> it will be shattered.

There you go again, trying to scare me off.

I take your dare. Post proof that the undeveloped areas of the Anacostia
watershed have 99.2% the impermeability of concrete. If you don't, go
lick your own wounds and nurse your own credibility.

> Alternatively, if I am anywhere _near_ to being
> "wrong" on this I will eat my crow with pretense of relish. But I
don't
> expect that latter to happen, because you're pretty much talking about
my
> backyard and I know it a lot better than you do.

For someone who claims not to have time to do research to defend your
own claims, you spend alot of time on bluster. It ain't gonna work on
me. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong the right way, but not by being
scared away by big words or warnings about licking my wounds.






Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.