🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:52:24 -0700, John Higdon
<no-spam@ClearChannel.RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

>in article 1SFSMOGSMOG203130n343@smoog.com, Bob  wrote:
>
>> San Francisco boasts of being such a progressive place, but
>> will not follow the environmental rules that others in the
>> state have to follow. Not fair!
>
>Baloney. San Francisco is playing the game exactly as the rules are written.
>Some people want to change the rules.
>
>> Read here about SF and the smog laws:
>> See:
>> http://www.ab2637.com/
>> http://www.ab2637.com/factsheet.htm
>
>Even though your campaign references above try to imply otherwise, they do
>not say that San Francisco is violating any laws. It is very simple: the air
>quality standards are met and the region has the appropriate level (in
>accordance with current law) of smog checks.
>
>I understand that it irritates people that some people (whether by accident
>of geography, meteorology, or whatever) don't have to suffer the punitive
>Smog II, and now want to change the rules in mid-game because they feel
>picked upon. 
>

John, weren't you the one who wanted SF to have the same power rates
as Southern Cal even though Southern Cal could get cheaper power by
"accident of geography" as you say?"  A search of google would prove
my point.  
>But don't say that San Francisco is not "playing by the rules", unless you
>are prepared to quote chapter and verse of the law San Francisco is
>violating.
>
>-- 
>John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
>+1 408 264 4115 |    AIM: plodder5    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
>