Seems you haven't learned your lesson from last time you grabbed a pithy facebook pic and posted without checking whether your lefty friends fact checked it first.
Personally, I'm not really convinced either way. I'll let Nikto continue reporting on this one but I do find it amusing that someone like Tillerson, who supports fracking, doesn't want to have to put up with the effects of said business, in this case, a water tower.
You still didn't read the lawsuit (provided in the links), did you? They have no objection to a low-rise water tank used to support fracking. The high-rise water tank is the problem. So it's got nothing to do with fracking to the non-reading-comprehension-impaired. Either that, or you're playing the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit" card. Again.
I think a part of you isn't really sure about how safe fracking is, GD, so you are avoiding going on record here. Understandable because I'm not really sure yet myself. My cousin (the one that wants to stick a fire iron up Obama's ass) says that fracking is why there are earthquakes in Texas now that no one talks about. Yet that is anecdata, not fact.
I don't think we know enough to make a determination one or the other but I do know that guys like Tillerson want to reap the profits of fracking without having any of the fallout where he lives. It sort of gives new meaning to the phrase, "Don't shit where you eat."
What part of "low-rise water tank for fracking is just hunky-dory, but high-rise tower is not," don't you understand? What part of "Tillerson's property is already adjacent to several oil and gas wells and fracking operations," don't you understand? Deliberate fuckwit, much?
IF I had a large enough property, oh hell yes, I'd allow it. I could use the fucking income. And done properly, it's no more problem than any other oil/natural gas drilling operation. It's only been around since ~1949, and 'massive' fracturing in use since 1968. My only concern would be noise. But seeing as how my back yard is maybe 18" at its widest, that's as much of a deliberate fuckwit question as, "Would you allow a 300' tall windmill in your backyard", or "Would you allow a hydro dam in your backyard?"
Famously, the Kennedy's and other assholes opposed a windfarm off of Martha's Vineyard. Putting on my Markadelphian-logic hat, "Do you think it was because they thought it would be an eyesore, or maybe they knew something we didn't about the health issues of infrasound?"
Personally, I can understand why someone wouldn't want giant windmills, drilling operations, high-speed rail lines, or super-highways next door. But back to GD's original point, your "infographic" is a lie. They're not suing to stop existing or future fracking operations, they're suing to stop construction of a new high-rise water tower when they'd been promised that no such thing was going to be built, only low-rise water tanks, O Deliberate Fuckwit.
Your post title has nothing to do with your post content.
You post content is false as shown by the actual content of the lawsuit.
Your attempt to deflect by asking a question that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of this post is obvious and childish.
So I ask again - guts for what - to not answer a question that is nothing more than a childish deflection to avoid facing the dishonesty you've exhibited within this post?
How about you grow a pair and face your dishonesty evident in this post?
Then, maybe if you actually make a post that discusses whether or not fracking is safe, and we have a discussion about it - then a question about my opinion of such would be relevant.
Why wait? You do an awfully good job of avoiding taking stands on issues out of fear of being criticized or (gasp!) being proved wrong. You have Obsession With Mark and Being A Critic down quite well but lack any real convictions of your own. What I do or don't do shouldn't be a catalyst for you stand behind an assertion.
Honestly, this is a golden opportunity for you to convince me that fracking is safe. I don't have an opinion one way or the other with the exception of Rex Tillerson being a hypocrite here.
Making up your imagined motivations for why I do something...
Making up your imagined motivations for why Rex Tillerson filed a lawsuit...
Obsession with Mark? On a blog written by Mark and expounding upon Mark's views? That's crazy talk.
Would you prefer, and I've asked this before, for me to reply to stuff some other guy posts on his blog, in a random fashion here? Nope, you're being stupid. You say stuff, we talk about stuff you say.
In point of fact, you made up shit, got called on it and are desperately trying to deflect.
From extensive prior experience I am aware that that is one of your standard operating procedures.
Why should I bother to answer you if you won't be bothered to converse in a honest manner.
But you don't offer any alternatives...just criticism. Why? Are you stupid? I don't think so. Afraid? You should be able to take the same criticism you dish out, no? This is a core problem with conservatives today and you won't make any significant gains in the electorate until you offer your own solutions.
you made up shit, got called on it and are desperately trying to deflect.
Yes, that's why I linked to the Forbes site which illustrates quite clearly why Tillerson is being a hypocrite. Note this...
He and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create “a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water, unlocks oil and gas from dense rock and has helped touch off a surge in U.S. energy output.
Given this information, are you still accusing me of being dishonest and are you extending that accusation to Forbes?
Well I think I would consider speaking truth as an alternative when you spread dishonesty....
On the other hand...what the fuck are you talking about? Seriously, you don't listen when alternatives are brought forth, you reject the basic premises out of hand and people can spend countless hours just straitening out the bullshit you spew, followed by your deliberate fuckwittedness and attempts to deflect.
Take for example this very thread. You've spent how many replies deflecting FROM THE TOPIC PRESENTED. That is normal with any conversation with you - and the only way to stay on topic is to IGNORE YOUR BULLSHIT deflections until brought back to topic.
Just like now, you finally come back to topic - sort of.
That Forbes piece? You present an op/ed as evidence? The choice 'quote' you present? Ya, no - that's the 'op' part there. As in the opinion of the writer - not, if you have any ability to comprehend language, factually based.
I presented the topic, the title of which was a question you still have yet to answer. You seem to be under some sort of illusion that you are in charge of the topics on this site. You aren't.
The choice 'quote' you present? Ya, no - that's the 'op' part there. As in the opinion of the writer - not, if you have any ability to comprehend language, factually based.
So stick to the actual text of the lawsuit.
You're right. Sorry. The quote that the tower would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards" is not exactly accurate via the text of the lawsuit. Here is the actual text.
The construction of the water tower will create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those who live next to it. A water tower will have lights on at all hours of the night, traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower and creates and unsafe and attractive nuisance to the children of the area
Ah, now it's OK to invoke the children. There is also mention in the suit of "destructive and detrimental" effects of the Tower and "emotional harm." Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
I'd also like to point out that if this case were brought be a liberal plantiff or someone not of the wealthy elite, it would likely be considered a "frivolous lawsuit."
I'm wondering, GD, did you actually read your link? It's about a lot more than a water tower. And if they are OK with a small water tower, how will there not be "traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower?"
Now that I have addressed the actual text of the lawsuit, it's time for you to answer the question posed in this post: is fracking safe? Yes or no? Would you allow it near your proprety? Yes or No?
The quote that the tower would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards" is not exactly accurate via the text of the lawsuit. Here is the actual text.
Yeah, and the quote that presents this out of context it thus: "in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water,...
You know, that out of context editorializing in order to present a certain, uhm, spin on the 'story'.
Oh yeah, kinda like this "Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
How about - the tower is not and never was suposed to be be taller than x - as was checked upon before purchasing the property....
Doesn't matter what the purpose of the tower is. That's your spin.
Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
No shit. It's about a lot of broken promises and violated zoning. We could debate all of that - including whether or not it is a 'frivolous lawsuit'. But since your original point was that this is somehow related to their so called opposition to fracking near their homes, that's kinda what I've been focusing on.
I presented the topic, the title of which was a question you still have yet to answer. You seem to be under some sort of illusion that you are in charge of the topics on this site. You aren't.
Now that I have addressed the actual text of the lawsuit, it's time for you to answer the question posed in this post: is fracking safe? Yes or no? Would you allow it near your proprety? Yes or No?
But neither your question nor your 'topic headline' had dick all to do with any bit of bullshit you posted under said headline.
You inferred that Rex doesn't want fracking going on in his backyard - despite that actual lawsuit listing other, valid reasons. Are you somehow are also inferring then that the reason he doesn't want fracking near by is that it isn't safe?
Shouldn't you rather actually present something that is actually relevant in order to make that question relevant?
Really Mark, the question seems out of place because is isn't related at all to anything you've posted in this thread other than you made the question/tile a non sequitur to the body of the post.
I'll answer it, because the rest of your bs seems to have run its course. But it doesn't matter - because, as I've said - it's irrelevant to anything else you broached here.
But the water tower is being built there BECAUSE of the fracking. Are you unfamiliar with the fact that fracking requires water?
Uhhm, no. Other people use water too. And again - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WATER TOWER IS - the lawsuit says the big, tall tower is the problem - it does not say the problem is a tower used for the purposes of fracking....
For pete's sake Mark, do you think the water tower is to be built in order to frack RIGHT THERE underneath the tower? Ever heard of this thing call plumbing?
Would you allow to go on on or near your property?
Again, irrelevant. I don't have any oil deposits in my area of the country - so I really have no idea what such an operation would consist of.
I would not, for examples, want a freeway, wal-mart, factory or airport going in next to my property. But that said - it is in no way hypocritical for me to say that, even if I am in favor of freeway's, wal-mart's, factories or airports in general. My property is zoned in such a manner that I have an expectation of what kinds of things will be built in the area - that is part of the pre-purchase decision process.
I wouldn't really want a dairy farm, pig farm or chicken farm going in next door either. But since the zoning is such that those are allowed - that's on me and I wouldn't complain at all - that would be the wrong action.
So let me ask you - do you want a freeway, wal-mart, factory or airport next to you property - and if you wouldn't want any of those, do you consider yourself a hypocrite if you also drive, shop, buy, work or fly?
There is a freeway near my house as well as a well traveled state highway and I have no problem with either. I actually like having quick access to roads that get me places faster. I'm not right next to an airport but am in one of the major flight paths for landing from the west so we hear planes all the time zoom over. Also, not a problem.
I would have a problem with Wal Mart but that's because of the way they treat their employees not due to the nuisance a commercial property would cause. So, Target would be fine. We have several factories within blocks of our house. No problems whatsoever. Interestingly, our Water tower is visible from our deck but I live in a suburb so it fits in nicely with the view of the area.
I'm still wondering if they would be OK with a smaller water tower. Wouldn't that also cause all of the problems with a large one (trucks etc)? I don't get it.
I'm still wondering if they would be OK with a smaller water tower. Wouldn't that also cause all of the problems with a large one (trucks etc)? I don't get it.
No shit. Perhaps, seeing as how I just listed a bunch of things I would not be ok with, and you (although changing the parameters of same) were ok with -perhaps you should start being a little reflective and realize that not everyone wants the same things, not everyone has the same priorities and not everyone is the same.
Hence some people living in Texas do not want a giant water tower being built on their expensive semi-rural street.
You don't want a wal-mart next door, but you are ok with a target - I think that is just a stupid distinction. But I can understand that you make that distinction. I don't ascribe a bunch of BS reasons of my own for that distinction like you have done for this water tower case.
28 comments:
False.
Seems you haven't learned your lesson from last time you grabbed a pithy facebook pic and posted without checking whether your lefty friends fact checked it first.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-fracking-tillerson-idUSBREA1P24O20140226
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/water20140220.pdf
"Rex Tillerson was opposed to the plan not because of fracking but because the tower would be much taller than what the town had originally proposed."
"Tillerson's property is already adjacent to several oil and gas wells and fracking operations, Jeffers added."
So fracking is safe?
Facts don't matter to markadelphia much, his narrative is far more important to him.
According to the Dept. of Energy it is.
Personally, I'm not really convinced either way. I'll let Nikto continue reporting on this one but I do find it amusing that someone like Tillerson, who supports fracking, doesn't want to have to put up with the effects of said business, in this case, a water tower.
doesn't want to have to put up with the effects of said business, in this case, a water tower.
Apparently you still didn't read the links. Keep promoting your false narrative, it's not like your lying or anything...oh wait, it is exactly that.
I did read them. What did they say the water from the tower would be use for.
Is fracking safe? Yes or no? Go on record, GD, since you seem to support it.
Safe or not is not the point you've made in this post.....
This post is nothing but false claims about someone, unsupported false claims.
I've pointed those out - now you redirect and avoid.
Par for the course.
Is the water from the tower going to be used for fracking?
You still didn't read the lawsuit (provided in the links), did you? They have no objection to a low-rise water tank used to support fracking. The high-rise water tank is the problem. So it's got nothing to do with fracking to the non-reading-comprehension-impaired. Either that, or you're playing the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit" card. Again.
Would either one of you allow fracking to go on in your backyard?
Irrelevant, avoidance, deflection.
If you object to the building of a freeway through your backyard, does that mean you hate cars?
I think a part of you isn't really sure about how safe fracking is, GD, so you are avoiding going on record here. Understandable because I'm not really sure yet myself. My cousin (the one that wants to stick a fire iron up Obama's ass) says that fracking is why there are earthquakes in Texas now that no one talks about. Yet that is anecdata, not fact.
I don't think we know enough to make a determination one or the other but I do know that guys like Tillerson want to reap the profits of fracking without having any of the fallout where he lives. It sort of gives new meaning to the phrase, "Don't shit where you eat."
What part of "low-rise water tank for fracking is just hunky-dory, but high-rise tower is not," don't you understand? What part of "Tillerson's property is already adjacent to several oil and gas wells and fracking operations," don't you understand? Deliberate fuckwit, much?
IF I had a large enough property, oh hell yes, I'd allow it. I could use the fucking income. And done properly, it's no more problem than any other oil/natural gas drilling operation. It's only been around since ~1949, and 'massive' fracturing in use since 1968. My only concern would be noise. But seeing as how my back yard is maybe 18" at its widest, that's as much of a deliberate fuckwit question as, "Would you allow a 300' tall windmill in your backyard", or "Would you allow a hydro dam in your backyard?"
Famously, the Kennedy's and other assholes opposed a windfarm off of Martha's Vineyard. Putting on my Markadelphian-logic hat, "Do you think it was because they thought it would be an eyesore, or maybe they knew something we didn't about the health issues of infrasound?"
Personally, I can understand why someone wouldn't want giant windmills, drilling operations, high-speed rail lines, or super-highways next door. But back to GD's original point, your "infographic" is a lie. They're not suing to stop existing or future fracking operations, they're suing to stop construction of a new high-rise water tower when they'd been promised that no such thing was going to be built, only low-rise water tanks, O Deliberate Fuckwit.
I think a part of you isn't really sure about how safe fracking is, GD, so you are avoiding going on record here
I think I will go on record as thinking you are a fucking moron who is utterly incapable of processing thought at even the low level of pea gravel....
For the reason why I think that - see Larry's post above.
Well, at least Larry has more guts than you do, GD.
Guts for what Mark?
Your post title has nothing to do with your post content.
You post content is false as shown by the actual content of the lawsuit.
Your attempt to deflect by asking a question that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of this post is obvious and childish.
So I ask again - guts for what - to not answer a question that is nothing more than a childish deflection to avoid facing the dishonesty you've exhibited within this post?
How about you grow a pair and face your dishonesty evident in this post?
Then, maybe if you actually make a post that discusses whether or not fracking is safe, and we have a discussion about it - then a question about my opinion of such would be relevant.
Why wait? You do an awfully good job of avoiding taking stands on issues out of fear of being criticized or (gasp!) being proved wrong. You have Obsession With Mark and Being A Critic down quite well but lack any real convictions of your own. What I do or don't do shouldn't be a catalyst for you stand behind an assertion.
Honestly, this is a golden opportunity for you to convince me that fracking is safe. I don't have an opinion one way or the other with the exception of Rex Tillerson being a hypocrite here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/02/22/exxon-ceo-profits-huge-as-americas-largest-natural-gas-producer-but-frack-it-in-his-own-backyard-and-he-sues/
You do an awfully good job of making up stuff.
Making up your imagined motivations for why I do something...
Making up your imagined motivations for why Rex Tillerson filed a lawsuit...
Obsession with Mark? On a blog written by Mark and expounding upon Mark's views? That's crazy talk.
Would you prefer, and I've asked this before, for me to reply to stuff some other guy posts on his blog, in a random fashion here? Nope, you're being stupid. You say stuff, we talk about stuff you say.
In point of fact, you made up shit, got called on it and are desperately trying to deflect.
From extensive prior experience I am aware that that is one of your standard operating procedures.
Why should I bother to answer you if you won't be bothered to converse in a honest manner.
In other words - when you lie, it stops the line.
You want answers? Stop being dishonest.
You say stuff, we talk about stuff you say.
But you don't offer any alternatives...just criticism. Why? Are you stupid? I don't think so. Afraid? You should be able to take the same criticism you dish out, no? This is a core problem with conservatives today and you won't make any significant gains in the electorate until you offer your own solutions.
you made up shit, got called on it and are desperately trying to deflect.
Yes, that's why I linked to the Forbes site which illustrates quite clearly why Tillerson is being a hypocrite. Note this...
He and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create “a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water, unlocks oil and gas from dense rock and has helped touch off a surge in U.S. energy output.
Given this information, are you still accusing me of being dishonest and are you extending that accusation to Forbes?
Well I think I would consider speaking truth as an alternative when you spread dishonesty....
On the other hand...what the fuck are you talking about? Seriously, you don't listen when alternatives are brought forth, you reject the basic premises out of hand and people can spend countless hours just straitening out the bullshit you spew, followed by your deliberate fuckwittedness and attempts to deflect.
Take for example this very thread. You've spent how many replies deflecting FROM THE TOPIC PRESENTED. That is normal with any conversation with you - and the only way to stay on topic is to IGNORE YOUR BULLSHIT deflections until brought back to topic.
Just like now, you finally come back to topic - sort of.
That Forbes piece? You present an op/ed as evidence? The choice 'quote' you present? Ya, no - that's the 'op' part there. As in the opinion of the writer - not, if you have any ability to comprehend language, factually based.
So stick to the actual text of the lawsuit.
deflecting FROM THE TOPIC PRESENTED
I presented the topic, the title of which was a question you still have yet to answer. You seem to be under some sort of illusion that you are in charge of the topics on this site. You aren't.
The choice 'quote' you present? Ya, no - that's the 'op' part there. As in the opinion of the writer - not, if you have any ability to comprehend language, factually based.
So stick to the actual text of the lawsuit.
You're right. Sorry. The quote that the tower would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards" is not exactly accurate via the text of the lawsuit. Here is the actual text.
The construction of the water tower will create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those who live next to it. A water tower will have lights on at all hours of the night, traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower and creates and unsafe and attractive nuisance to the children of the area
Ah, now it's OK to invoke the children. There is also mention in the suit of "destructive and detrimental" effects of the Tower and "emotional harm." Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
I'd also like to point out that if this case were brought be a liberal plantiff or someone not of the wealthy elite, it would likely be considered a "frivolous lawsuit."
I'm wondering, GD, did you actually read your link? It's about a lot more than a water tower. And if they are OK with a small water tower, how will there not be "traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower?"
Now that I have addressed the actual text of the lawsuit, it's time for you to answer the question posed in this post: is fracking safe? Yes or no? Would you allow it near your proprety? Yes or No?
The quote that the tower would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards" is not exactly accurate via the text of the lawsuit. Here is the actual text.
Yeah, and the quote that presents this out of context it thus: "in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water,...
You know, that out of context editorializing in order to present a certain, uhm, spin on the 'story'.
Oh yeah, kinda like this "Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
How about - the tower is not and never was suposed to be be taller than x - as was checked upon before purchasing the property....
Doesn't matter what the purpose of the tower is. That's your spin.
Since the Tower is used for fracking, the Armeys and Tillerson don't really seem to want the fallout that comes from fracking, hence "not In my backyard!"
No shit. It's about a lot of broken promises and violated zoning. We could debate all of that - including whether or not it is a 'frivolous lawsuit'. But since your original point was that this is somehow related to their so called opposition to fracking near their homes, that's kinda what I've been focusing on.
I presented the topic, the title of which was a question you still have yet to answer. You seem to be under some sort of illusion that you are in charge of the topics on this site. You aren't.
Now that I have addressed the actual text of the lawsuit, it's time for you to answer the question posed in this post: is fracking safe? Yes or no? Would you allow it near your proprety? Yes or No?
But neither your question nor your 'topic headline' had dick all to do with any bit of bullshit you posted under said headline.
You inferred that Rex doesn't want fracking going on in his backyard - despite that actual lawsuit listing other, valid reasons. Are you somehow are also inferring then that the reason he doesn't want fracking near by is that it isn't safe?
Shouldn't you rather actually present something that is actually relevant in order to make that question relevant?
Really Mark, the question seems out of place because is isn't related at all to anything you've posted in this thread other than you made the question/tile a non sequitur to the body of the post.
I'll answer it, because the rest of your bs seems to have run its course. But it doesn't matter - because, as I've said - it's irrelevant to anything else you broached here.
I don't know.
Doesn't matter what the purpose of the tower is. That's your spin.
despite that actual lawsuit listing other, valid reasons.
But the water tower is being built there BECAUSE of the fracking. Are you unfamiliar with the fact that fracking requires water?
I don't know.
Would you allow to go on on or near your property?
But the water tower is being built there BECAUSE of the fracking. Are you unfamiliar with the fact that fracking requires water?
Uhhm, no. Other people use water too. And again - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WATER TOWER IS - the lawsuit says the big, tall tower is the problem - it does not say the problem is a tower used for the purposes of fracking....
For pete's sake Mark, do you think the water tower is to be built in order to frack RIGHT THERE underneath the tower? Ever heard of this thing call plumbing?
Would you allow to go on on or near your property?
Again, irrelevant. I don't have any oil deposits in my area of the country - so I really have no idea what such an operation would consist of.
I would not, for examples, want a freeway, wal-mart, factory or airport going in next to my property. But that said - it is in no way hypocritical for me to say that, even if I am in favor of freeway's, wal-mart's, factories or airports in general. My property is zoned in such a manner that I have an expectation of what kinds of things will be built in the area - that is part of the pre-purchase decision process.
I wouldn't really want a dairy farm, pig farm or chicken farm going in next door either. But since the zoning is such that those are allowed - that's on me and I wouldn't complain at all - that would be the wrong action.
So let me ask you - do you want a freeway, wal-mart, factory or airport next to you property - and if you wouldn't want any of those, do you consider yourself a hypocrite if you also drive, shop, buy, work or fly?
There is a freeway near my house as well as a well traveled state highway and I have no problem with either. I actually like having quick access to roads that get me places faster. I'm not right next to an airport but am in one of the major flight paths for landing from the west so we hear planes all the time zoom over. Also, not a problem.
I would have a problem with Wal Mart but that's because of the way they treat their employees not due to the nuisance a commercial property would cause. So, Target would be fine. We have several factories within blocks of our house. No problems whatsoever. Interestingly, our Water tower is visible from our deck but I live in a suburb so it fits in nicely with the view of the area.
I'm still wondering if they would be OK with a smaller water tower. Wouldn't that also cause all of the problems with a large one (trucks etc)? I don't get it.
NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE
I'm still wondering if they would be OK with a smaller water tower. Wouldn't that also cause all of the problems with a large one (trucks etc)? I don't get it.
No shit. Perhaps, seeing as how I just listed a bunch of things I would not be ok with, and you (although changing the parameters of same) were ok with -perhaps you should start being a little reflective and realize that not everyone wants the same things, not everyone has the same priorities and not everyone is the same.
Hence some people living in Texas do not want a giant water tower being built on their expensive semi-rural street.
You don't want a wal-mart next door, but you are ok with a target - I think that is just a stupid distinction. But I can understand that you make that distinction. I don't ascribe a bunch of BS reasons of my own for that distinction like you have done for this water tower case.
Post a Comment