T1B

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:24 pm**

88 wrote:
mothster wrote:pardon me while i dumb it down for us simpletons.......

vile filth spewing from tailpipes and smokestacks is a good thing?

thank you
Probably not, unless you need to go from one place to another or need a job or the products that are being produced in the building with the smokestacks.

You're welcome

thanks for missing the arguement in your own thread captain obvious

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:54 pm**

Really? Who declared war on the environment? I think I missed that one.

Ever hear of a SuperFund site?
How many fish are safe to eat out of your local lake or river?

Do some research.

The mining, timber, and chemical manufacturing industries are all good places to start.

A few examples...

Lake Superior
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f ... vehistory/

Hanford, WA
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228 ... ord15.html

Libby, MT
http://www.meic.org/Libby_background.html

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:17 pm**

Uncle Fester wrote:I'm sure the army of scientists studying it will be swayed by your short, declarative sentences.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:19 pm**

Nothing hysterical about it.

When companies are allowed to level entire mountains, clear-cut old growth forests, contaminate water tables, and take a 25-year-long shit in Lake Superior because they're too cheap to build tailings ponds, it's a declaration of war.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 pm**

If there's anything more pathetic than a ditto-head parroting the Rovian/Limpdick pooh-pooh line on Global Warming, it's one of these wannabe neocon's actually defending Rumsfeld.

But there's not one. None!

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:19 pm**

88 wrote:If you have ever driven to Mt. St. Helens, you see a landscape that is almost entirely devoid of plant and animal life for miles and miles.

Are you

A) Retarded,

or

B) Making this up?

Mt St Helens has about the same amount of shit growing arond it as just about any other Cascade volcano.

Good pic of eruption-damaged trees, in contrast to the new growth.

Yup, looks almost entirely devoid of plant and animal life.

Doesn't show vegetation, but a cool view of Helens from Portland

Too bad -- I couldn't find a pic of the huge herd of elk that lives right on the west slope of the mountain, since all the growth there makes for easy picken's for them.

Next, maybe you can try and tell me a lie about something I don't see every day.

Not that it's particularly germaine to the point at hand, but speaks to your willingness to make shit up to try and make your point.

Most of what was destroyed by Mt St Helens began replenishing itself within a few years.

But really 88 -- please do tell me more about the Mt St Helens eruption -- really.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:20 pm**

too bad the only photos you could find with people in them all contained fags.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:08 pm**

Did you win the race, Dins? No clue you could do that in Tubes.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:03 pm**

jtr wrote:too bad the only photos you could find with people in them all contained fags.

Oh snap!

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:11 am**

You've been...twice?

Oh, well color me inpressed.

Because, like I say -- it's not like I see it every freaking (semi-clear or better) day or anything, and I sure don't get the "Mt St Helens 'feel-good' " story about all of the wildlife on my local news about once a month or anything.

Didn't witness the eruption firsthand, or anything like that, either.

Please, tell me more? I mean, since you've been there...twice. You're like Fubuclown, only without the sex.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:44 am**

You mean you...took pictures?

Of St Helens?

Oh, you ARE a rare man, indeed.

I mean, only a true stalwart of geology has pictures of Mt St Helens.

Fucking KILLING me over here.

Somewhere, I think I might actually have some pics kicking around. Taken...when was that again...let me think...that's right -- May 18, 1980.

But dude, I feel trumped...I mean, a tourist took pics of St Helens.

Yeah, I'd be boasting about that all over the internet if I were you, too. It's not every day someone is taking pics of Helens.

You aren't canadian by any chance, are you?

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:10 am**

Nice try.

What were we talking about again?

Oh, that's right --

88 wrote:you see a landscape that is almost entirely devoid of plant and animal life for miles and miles.

I see it's now been modified to "almost entirely devoid of plant life"...over 26 years old.

I called your bullshit, you changed the subject.

Oh, changed the subject, and broke out the fearsome "fatass" card.

You are truly an astute student of both smack and debate.

I mean, subtly implying that another poster is...fat?

I'm wounded...truly.

I suppose I should be expecting "you're gay," and "you're retarded" next?

Oh, and since you seem to be fishing -- I'm not just not fat...I'm downright skinny. I'd also venture a guess that I've spent more time in the Cascades than anyone on this board.

Keep trying, though...don't think for one second I'm not getting a laugh at your expense.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:00 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:You mean you...took pictures?

Of St Helens?

Oh, you ARE a rare man, indeed.

I mean, only a true stalwart of geology has pictures of Mt St Helens.

Fucking KILLING me over here.

and yet you're the guy getting all Cliff Claven in Roach/Irie's 420 thread? :?

If I lived on San Andreas I'd start to ignore the signs, too, unless the 'really really big one' hit.

If I'm just visiting, I pay much more attention.

Or maybe the difference between living in the States, and how outsiders view the States, politically, would make a better comparison. :? It's always possible to be so close one can't see.

Speaking of, this reminds me of the rumors about Ashton and Demi and the new baby...

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:13 pm**

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:16 pm**

For Moving Stale

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:22 pm**

So, what you're saying, is that areas covered in silt are subject to erosion, making it tough for plant life to get a good grip until ground cover stabilizes the soil?

What a shocking turn of events.

The heavily silted areas of the other Cascade volcanoes are subject to the same erosion problem as St Helens is. Very little in the way of large firs grows in the silted areas.

You know...silted areas...like in the pics you posted.

When I was at Spirit Lake in 1983, the ground-cover/brush was growing back just fine. Impressive freaking sight-btw. Old growth stacked up like toothpicks, most of which is no longer visible, although there's plenty of evidence of the devastation still.

And if the area is devoid of life as you claim, then where does the nourishment come from that's producing the ultra-huge rainbows that Spirit Lake has become known for? Monster fish don't grow in nutrient-free water. A mountain lake is very dependant on surrounding flora for its nutrients. So where are the 10+ pound rainbows coming from in the sterile ecosystem?

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:30 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:So, what you're saying, is that areas covered in silt are subject to erosion, making it tough for plant life to get a good grip until ground cover stabilizes the soil?

What a shocking turn of events.

The heavily silted areas of the other Cascade volcanoes are subject to the same erosion problem as St Helens is. Very little in the way of large firs grows in the silted areas.

You know...silted areas...like in the pics you posted.

When I was at Spirit Lake in 1983, the ground-cover/brush was growing back just fine. Impressive freaking sight-btw. Old growth stacked up like toothpicks, most of which is no longer visible, although there's plenty of evidence of the devastation still.

And if the area is devoid of life as you claim, then where does the nourishment come from that's producing the ultra-huge rainbows that Spirit Lake has become known for? Monster fish don't grow in nutrient-free water. A mountain lake is very dependant on surrounding flora for its cunt cookies. So where are the 10+ pound rainbows coming from in the sterile ecosystem?

Fish farm? :P

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:33 pm**

88 wrote:Nice try, Dinsdale. When you are having your ass handed to you on the FACTS, you might as well take a shot at changing the argument to semantics. Weak, pathetic, and typical in your case. And it won't work.

The area destroyed by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens is almost entirely devoid of plant and animal life for miles and miles. LINK to photos taken by some dude in 2005.

Some of the photos on the page you swiped your misleading photo from also show the devastation as of 2005:

Now, if you still contend that:

Dinsdale wrote:Mt St Helens has about the same amount of shit growing arond it as just about any other Cascade volcano.
I'll be happy to post photos of the dense U&L forests surrounding other Cascade volcanos.

88 I think you'd have a better chance of prooving your point if any of those "devastated areas" didn't have as much green stuff growning in them, way to KYOA yet again in this argument.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:34 pm**

When Mt. St. Helens blew its load, I was living with this hottie in this big house near 17th/Thompson st. I remember using the garden hose to clear off the porch and walkway. I also remember the tard kid next door who was doing the snow angel thing in the ash.

I wish I had saved a coffee can full of the shit at the time. I could make a few extra bucks for the whiskey weekends. Recently, I bought two bottles of Holy Water at the Jordan River. I was riding in the back of the small tourist bus when someone asked me what I bought there, and I said, "Holy Water."

"Oh that is nice, Luth."

"I was so parched that I drank both of them."

I made that commie bitch from Minnesota laugh/cough so hard that she popped a small vein in her left eye. I called her sockeye for the rest of the trip.

Rip City

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:44 pm**

jtr wrote: 88 I think you'd have a better chance of prooving your point if any of those "devastated areas" didn't have as much green stuff growning in them

By West-Of-The-Cascades standards(St Helens is way on the west side of the range), those pics are actually fairly devoid of greenery.

But as I explained, what you see in the pics is literally dozens of feet of ash/silt, which could best be compared to really fine sand. Until some of that brush decays and makes it loamy, the soil won't really compact very well, and is therefore subject to severe erosion. That is why you see those gray areas in the pics, and is the only reason the plant life is struggling there. And as I mentioned previously, this is in no way exlusive to St Helens, although it's definitely the best example. Any of the silt-covered, steeply sloped areas of Mt Hood are similarly devoid of vegetation, despite what picture others may be trying to paint of it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:47 pm**

Luther wrote:I wish I had saved a coffee can full of the shit at the time. I could make a few extra bucks for the whiskey weekends.

How much you want?

Or better yet -- how much money are we talking about here?

I recently discovered a couple of large jars full. Not sure how hard it will be to get the lids off, though. Haven't tried yet. It's been 26 years, but I still haven't forgotten how much that shit stank.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:50 pm**

Sidenote:
There's a company packaging and selling the ash as an oil and liquid absorbent. Rather than using cat litter to clean up after your oil change you can throw down some ash. It's expensive stuff but it works really well.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:51 pm**

I called her sockeye for the rest of the trip.

heh heh

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:54 pm**

Luther wrote:When Mt. St. Helens blew its load, I was living with this hottie in this big house near 17th/Thompson st.

Told y'all octogenarians don't have to lose sex appeal.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:56 pm**

Rootbeer wrote:It's expensive stuff but it works really well.

Because goodness knows, that stuff is hard to come by. I mean, it's not like you can just stick a shovel in the ground in Eastern Washington and get it, or anything.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:58 pm**

mvscal wrote:
RadioFan wrote:In those days following 9/11, virtually all commercial air traffic was grounded. Wisconsin climate scientist David Travis was struck by the unusual clarity of the sky during those days.
What a total crock of shit. I guess we're just supposed to forget that the morning of 9/11 was also crystal clear long before any planes were grounded.

Douchebags...

The clarity was due to the enormous tears cried by that massive badly-painted eagle on those throws morons have in their dens.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:04 pm**

You remember the movie Red Planet where they suddenly come across a patch of green grass on Mars it kinda looked like

this pic. Could it be possible there is grass on Mars or is it just sci-fi hoopla?

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:11 pm**

jtr wrote:Could it be possible there is grass on Mars or is it just sci-fi hoopla?

Hmmm....let's think about it --

Little-to-no atmosphere. Little-to-no water. 8 buhzillion degrees below zero, on average.

I dunno...what do YOU think, Jess?

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:28 pm**

mvscal wrote: I can smell the frying circuitry from here.

Resulting in a double-delux jewfro. Doesn't help combat the rosacia any, either.

Fine working example of "If you can get me and mvscal to agree on something, chances are you just said something pretty stupid."

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:46 pm**

I'll go with an "almost-absolute."

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:50 pm**

Don't be so sure about the lack of grass on Mars...

Even if no grass, I'm pretty sure that some goovy acid has made it there.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:11 pm**

She had rings on her fingers and bells on her shoes.

I knew without asking she was into the blues.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:16 pm**

Give me five
I'm still alive

I swear to God and GOD and Jerry and all else that's holy that I drove by that building, completely by chance, while tripping in the city one day about 25 years ago. It just about freaked me out, but it was there and I KNOW it wasn't the acid. I KNOW IT.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:19 pm**

Mikey wrote:Give me five
I'm still alive

I swear to God and GOD and Jerry and all else that's holy that I drove by that building, completely by chance, while tripping in the city one day about 25 years ago. It just about freaked me out, but it was there and I KNOW it wasn't the acid. I KNOW IT.

You drove your car while tripping? Freaky!

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:20 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mikey wrote:Give me five
I'm still alive

I swear to God and GOD and Jerry and all else that's holy that I drove by that building, completely by chance, while tripping in the city one day about 25 years ago. It just about freaked me out, but it was there and I KNOW it wasn't the acid. I KNOW IT.

You drove your car while tripping? Freaky!

San Francisco was made for that.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:02 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
You drove your car while tripping? Freaky!

Yup.

Not nearly as freaky as getting pulled over while tripping HARD.

And then after pretty much admitting to being tripping HARD, after getting pulled over for going 25 on the freeway late at night...having the cops tell you to get back in your car and get the fuck out of there.

OR SO I'VE HEARD that that could possibly be freaky.

T1B

An Inconvenient Truth