🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38F888ED.D1203223@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:

(snippage)

>
> On one site specifically dedicated to the Anacostia, which has
inexplicably
> disappeared from the Net for now. See the link under
> http://www.gmu.edu/bios/
>
> So screw the specific claim. It's a red-herring anyway.

For a red herring, you sure talked it up earlier.

Now we are left with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, like we started.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Well... since I typed in the text at the top of the message, I
decided
> > to go
> > > do some fieldwork.
> > >
> > > I put on my army green t-shirt and my battered camo patrol cap,
got
> > into my
> > > little red Nissan station-wagon, and toured the area in question.
I
> > think I
> > > managed to go actually take a look at most of the watershed in
> > question.
> > >
> > > Now, you seem to be of the opinion that there will be some vast
> > expanse of
> > > concrete laid into place in the pristine and virgin forests of
east
> > Olney.
> > > Let me tell you -- it's not going to happen.
> >
> > Now you've completely switched from "it won't matter" to "it won't
> > happen anyway."
>
> The chances of The Rich subdividing their "rurban" ("rural suburban")
> estates so as to slap up high-density low-rent housing is just about
nil and
> you know it.

I never said they would. That's why you switched. I never brought up
low-rent vs. high-rent (though I note that you assume all high-density
development is low-rent, which is false).

>
> By the time they do that, the Singularity will long since have come
and gone
> and natural watersheds will either be the rule globally (nothing
remotely
> human left) or it won't much matter in any case (nothing remotely
human
> left).

But what if there isn't enough cold dark matter and the universe expands
forever without a new singularity? (I've got an argument against
everything, don't I?)

>
(your travelogue snipped)
> > > I just can't imaging them building a lot of
low-rent
> > > apartments with lots of parking spaces and no flood abatement
right
> > there!
> >
> > Your imagination isn't very good evidence.
>
> For one, it's a registered historical landmark, I'm pretty sure, also
it's
> bi-county agency property.
>
> May I also recommend that you get your Heavy Sarcasm detector
recalibrated.

I was dead serious.

>
> >
> > > (more snippage to save bandwidth)
> >
> > What is the point of all this? What does the price of these homes
have
> > to do with anything? I don't see anything about the permeability of
the
> > soil or the percentage of impermeable surfaces in the watershed yet.
>
> The point is that there _will be no paving over of the watershed_.
Whatever
> will ever happen along that line _is already done_.

I'll need to take a look at a map myself before I believe you.
>
> <snips>
>
> > >
> > > This business about "immense concrete expanses ruining the
precious
> > > Northwest Branch of the Anacostia is a bunch of misleading hooey,
and
> > it is
> > > about one thing and one thing only, seen in the context of a State
and
> > > County where there are some of the finest roads and finest civil
> > engineers
> > > and some of the most restrictive environmental laws and codes in
the
> > > country.
> >
> > I understand your point now. You have dropped your hydrological
issue
> > and moved to a rather wordy new argument -- that the watershed is
> > already developed.
>
> That _is__ the hydrological issue!

Then why the hell did you throw all that crap about geological
conditions at me when all the soil and rocks are covered with concrete?

> There's not going to be "massive
> concretization" out there. It's just not going to happen. If there's
an
> issue here, it's about deforestation so that rich fscks can have three
acres
> of lawn... which retains runoff nowhere near as well as does forest or
even
> scrub.

What deforestation? If there is more deforestation for lawns, isn't that
new development?
>
> >
> > Your characterization of the area may be accurate, but incomplete.
I'll
> > get back to you after I look at the maps for myself.
>
> The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go see for yourself, on
no
> map could I find the vast majority of this recent development. Which
is
> ongoing I might add.
>
> > >
> > > This is _entirely_ about rich-ass bastards who are absolutely will
> > (and
> > > financially able) to throttle the rest of the State of Maryland
and in
> > fact
> > > by derivation the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area... simply
> > because
> > > they don't want their precious tranquillity shattered by a road
that
> > the
> > > area has desperately needed for 30 years.
> > >
> > > Any argument not directly addressing _that_ is primarily bullshit
and
> > a red
> > > herring.
> >
> > I'll check the maps and get back to you.
>
> The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go look for yourself as
> almost none of this recent development appears on any maps I could
find. If
> you're really serious about this, commission a photosurvey overflight
or get
> some this-week satellite shots.

I'll find an up-to-date map.
>
> >
> > >
> > > <snips>
> > > >
> > > > Just tell me where you got the 99.2% number. A quick citation
will
> > be
> > > > fine.
> > >
> > > Smokescreen, bullshit, red-herring.
> >
> > Now we finally get to the bottom of you.
> >
> > YOU brought up the 99.2% number.
> >
> > >
> > > NIMBY Rich-boy shill.
> >
> > I don't live anywhere near the area, so you can't call me NIMBY. I
am
> > not rich either. But it's clear that you're getting frustrated.
>
> Yes, because you're trying to beat a dead horse
>  which is in fact completely a straw-man to the issue.

You brought up the rocks and the 99.2%, and you still insist on using
"NIMBY" where it clearly doesn't apply. so don't tell me about a dead
horse.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Remainder snipped, since it's misdirection, and a troll off of the
> > real
> > > issue here... wealthy elitists perfectly willing to choke the rest
of
> > the
> > > State's east-west heavy traffic needs,
> >
> > Don't you just hate rich people! Why, poor people just love to have
big
> > highways go through their neighborhoods! They don't complain, they
just
> > roll over like good little poor people.
>
> Hah, tell that to Doug Willinger and the other I-95 into DC folks.

Were they wrong?

Do you think every highway that goes through an existing neighborhood is
a good one? Would you want a highway in your backyard? Are you NIMBY?

>
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that a highway might be a bad idea no
matter
> > what the wealth of the neighborhood it slices up?
>
> It occurred to me and I as quickly dismissed it; it was well known
that
> there was a desperate need for this exact highway some 30 years ago.

But you admit that the wealth issue is a bunch of political crap?

>
> >
> > > and clearly with enough money
> > to keep
> > > Governor Parris Glendenning in their hip-pocket.
> >
> > What happened to all the soil talk?
>
> It's no longer germane to the discussion.

Why not? Why was it germane before? You sure seemed sure of yourself.

> But I still stand by my
statements
> that as regards the NW Branch of the Anacostia (not Paint Branch no
any
> other) outside of the connector itself, you may lay your fears of
massive
> concretization to rest. It's not going to happen to any degree so as
to
> significantly impact the NW Branch.

Why should I believe you? Do you have an independent source?
>
> >
> > >
> > > It's awfully odd, isn't it. The sites that every other
> > ecology/watershed
> > > site points to, which has the soil permeability figures, is
suddenly
> > > offline. The other sites still point to it... I guess when you
have
> > enough
> > > money, you can do anything.
> >
> > Even cut off the free flow of information in the internet age?
That's
> > straight out of the X-Files. Don't get paranoid.
>
> I'm not being paranoid, I'm looking at 350 years of Corrupt Politics
As A
> Given in Maryland. Ask Spiro T. Agnew if you don't believe me.

I didn't say Maryland wasn't full of corruption -- it is. I say they
can't go around supressing information on the web. That should be
obvious.
>
> >
> > >I bet one could even, if they had enough
> > money,
> > > get the Governor to permanently shitcan the idea of a freeway
through
> > the
> > > backyard of rich people, and then sell the reserved/purchased
lands
> > back to
> > > the developers at just the right cost for them to make an unholy
> > bundle of
> > > cash, with a healthy chunk of that going to the future Governor of
> > Maryland,
> > > the Kathleen Kennedy (Townsend).
> >
> > Throwing out unsupported accusations only makes you look even more
> > paranoid.
>
> No, it makes me someone who's eminently familiar with Maryland
politics and
> Democratic PArty politics.

You keep expecting me to take your word for everything. Sorry, the world
doesn't work that way.
>
> Being wary when you're in bear-country isn't paranoia, silly -- it's
how you
> don't get et y a grizzly.

But you're more than "wary" -- you're claiming that there's definitely a
grizzly right behind the next tree. Show me the grizzly, and I'll
believe you.
>
> > >
> > > I don't care if the soil around the NW Branch Anacostia headwaters
is
> > so
> > > goddamned absorbent that it sucks enough to make the damned river
run
> > uphill
> > > and backwards.
> >
> > You used to.
>
> That was before I went out and tramped around. There is a lot of
berming and
> other flow-control engineering, you'd be totally astounded at the
stuff just
> to the northwest of the intersection of Layhill Road and Bel Pre Road.
It's
> like the Army Corp of Engineers On Speed went through there. I don't
think
> you have much to worry about.

I'm glad, but I prefer more scientifically reliable assessments. I'm
sure you are telling the truth about what you saw, but you only used
your eyes, and you only saw a little bit of the whole picture. Plus
you're clearly biased.


>
> >
> > > This is all this blockade of the ICC is about, all it's
> > ever
> > > been about, but never so much more so than now... it's the rich
> > looking out
> > > for the rich, and to hell with everyone else.
> > >
> > > Go look for yourself, it's apparent as the nose on your face.
> >



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