Dirty air FoH style.... -- Columbia County Talk

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: Dirty air FoH style....

Author:
Gene

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:58:38 12/19/05 Mon
In reply to: Ned Depew 's message, "Berkshire/Capital District HomeStyle" on 12:40:19 12/19/05 Mon

You have to thank yourself and FoH for all the dirty air. We could have had a brand new clean, state of the art cement plant. Thanks for all the dirty air we have to breath, don't be blaming it on anything else.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Subject: According to Phil Lochbrunner...

Author:
Ned Depew
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:15:09 12/19/05 Mon

..."the air in Greenport would probably be dirtier if the Greenport proposal were built." But you probably think he was lying.

Only you, Gene, could be so dense as to blame FoH for the fact that SLC is taking advantage of their "grandfathered" staus in Cementon to emit pollution that subjects their neighbors some of the highest concentrations of dirty, toxic air in the state.

The Greenport plant wouldn't have made things any better. In fact, it would have made them worse, and for many more people. The facts were all there - but you never paid any attention to them, and you aren't paying any attention to them now. What else is new?

[> [> [> [> Subject: The glass is half full or is it half empty???
Author: Gene [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 07:48:41 12/20/05 Tue Define and prove " would probably" for me which is subjective to your interpertation. The science which went into the project supports my position.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ask Phil...he said it
Author: Ned Depew [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 09:21:09 12/20/05 Tue At any rate, Gene, he wasn't willing (at that point) to lie and tell people the air would be cleaner. But you are...aren't you?