and thus she begins. . .

Crystal · Post by **Crystal** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:11 pm

blueheaven wrote:Crystal, I'm sure you are passionate about this situation and all, but there is a better way to handle this than posting veiled insults and rude comments. Try posting something less smarmy next time.

And, to set the record straight, the US Federal govt. gave Alaska over $400 million in relief aid almost immediately. Airlines also pitched in and provided airlifts to victims trapped by flood waters. The same thing happened three years later with the Fairbanks flood of the Chena river.

The reason I said this- "But that was before my time so I only have the word of people who actually lived through it" is beacuse I wasn't sure. I only talked to people who live through the earthquke but did not apparently get money directly from the government.

Sorry, I guess the smiley face wasn't enough of a clue that I was kidding. I wasn't trying to be rude or insulting. I'm sorry my position bothers you so much. I'll go away now.

blueheaven · Post by **blueheaven** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:34 pm

Crystal wrote:Sorry, I guess the smiley face wasn't enough of a clue that I was kidding. I wasn't trying to be rude or insulting. I'm sorry my position bothers you so much. I'll go away now.

It wasn't your position, but the way it was worded. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions here, but we try and keep things polite when we can. No worries.

soda · Post by **soda** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:21 pm

told ya....

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:21 pm

Perhaps I'm just expressing my own concern about it.

blueheaven · Post by **blueheaven** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:00 pm

soda wrote:told ya....

Armchair quarterback

soda · Post by **soda** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:37 pm

blueheaven wrote:Armchair quarterback

cool, a new game

Armchair quarterback
Footstool dimehand

your turn

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:37 pm

I do not understand.

soda · Post by **soda** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:39 pm

Cloud wrote:I do not understand.

okay, then how about:
Legcouch pennyelbow
Headtable nicklefinger
Nosedesk quartertoe

soda · Post by **soda** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:41 am

sniff, sniff

nobody wants to come out and play?

earbed nickleknee

btw: I'm gone all next week with limited internet access--no need to make a big deal about it by posting a reply. I don't need it announced to the world. Happy Holidays.

kisara · Post by **kisara** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:00 am

Crystal wrote:Alaskans have been a chorus in the wilderness on this matter for more than 20 years. It's too much to expect that they should listen to us now. Never mind that the bill did pass once but Clinton vetoed it. Also please ignore the fact land in ANWR was set aside for oil exploration. I am just a bit tired of Alaska being treated as a second class state. They lock up 1/3 of the state in federal land and parks yet conveniently back out on the promises made when Alaska became a state. I have an outlandish idea though, why not lock up 1/3 of every state and not permit people to live there or develop the land. Hmm. . .

It's nice that they want to give the areas devastated by hurricane Katrina 3.1 billion dollars in total to rebuild. Let me think, after the 9.2 earthquake that devastated Anchorage and drowned Valdez and caused widespead damage (second largest quake ever) what did Alaska get? Oh, right. I'm pretty sure it was $0. There were low interest loans available however. But that was before my time so I only have the word of people who actually lived through it.

Thank you Baakay, for looking at both sides of the issue. It's something not many people are willing to do. You've brought up a very valid point that oil isn't just about cars and trucks and gas milage.

Thank you also NSP. You used humor to make the exact point. It's impossible to end our dependance on oil any time soon. Since human cloning is a no-no I think we're out of luck in the Scotty department.

To address the current price of oil you'd have to talk to the roughly 1 billion Chinese who have developed a taste for driving everywhere.

I drive a fuel efficient small car but last time I checked it did not run on "sunshine and farts."

You know, I absolutely understand every opinion raised here. But what concerns me is. . . you allow this, what stops people from cutting lumber in the Redwood forests, cause you know, there's a hell of a lot of wood there. And then, while we're at that, let's start tapping Yellowstone for thermal energy. You see? It's very, very dangerous ground to start walking-on.

I know it may seem completely ridiculous. . .now. But I live very near an area where thousands of people were kicked-out of their homes (too many VERY unwillingly) because government and cooperate America decided the land was better suited for shopping. Nothing else they could do could really surprise me at this point.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:17 am

kisara wrote:
You know, I absolutely understand every opinion raised here. But what concerns me is. . . you allow this, what stops people from cutting lumber in the Redwood forests

To keep everything factual: They already cut down trees in the redwoods. Thinning the forest once in a while keeps the forest healthy. You probably already knew that though

kisara · Post by **kisara** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:41 am

*laughs*

You knew what I meant.

Cutting to prevent fires is a bit different.

*glomps NSP*

I like ya. Even if you are a republican.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:14 pm

That's good, I like me too

Japoro · Post by **Japoro** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:09 pm

Crystal wrote:Sorry, I guess the smiley face wasn't enough of a clue that I was kidding. I wasn't trying to be rude or insulting. I'm sorry my position bothers you so much. I'll go away now.

Booo. Don't do that. I have, found your opinion on this subject kind of interesting. As it has already been said, we rarely get to hear about subjects, such as this, from people who live in the state, or are directly affected by such a project. Some times, people need to voice their opinion.

Crystal wrote: They lock up 1/3 of the state in federal land and parks yet conveniently back out on the promises made when Alaska became a state. I have an outlandish idea though, why not lock up 1/3 of every state and not permit people to live there or develop the land.

Just to add something, I do believe Nevada is somethig like 75% Federally owned, by the BLM and/or the millitary. Not sure, been several years since I heard the exact number.

blueheaven · Post by **blueheaven** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:13 pm

Japoro wrote:
Crystal wrote: They lock up 1/3 of the state in federal land and parks yet conveniently back out on the promises made when Alaska became a state. I have an outlandish idea though, why not lock up 1/3 of every state and not permit people to live there or develop the land.
Just to add something, I do believe Nevada is somethig like 75% Federally owned, by the BLM and/or the millitary. Not sure, been several years since I heard the exact number.

Tis true I'm afraid, and it grows larger every year thanks to eminent domain. At least Alaska doesn't have the government breathing down their necks to store the country's toxic and nuclear waste a few miles down the road inside our largest and most beautiful mountains.