"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:49:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Your claim
that enviros and bureaucrats are teaming up against boaters was a bit
far-fetched

So I take it you don't think the enviros would line up in favor of
requiring
permits for all discharges by recreational boaters? And you don't think
that
if there were such a requirement the bureaucrats would ask for more people
and money to process the applications?


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:08:30 -0400, said:

So I take it you don't think the enviros would line up in favor of requiring
permits for all discharges by recreational boaters? And you don't think that
if there were such a requirement the bureaucrats would ask for more people
and money to process the applications?

The both of you need to take a deep breath and go find out what this
issue is actually about.

So far as my exchange with Jon is concerned, the particular case is
irrelevant. We are dealing with the hypothetical posed by Larry, in which
millions of boaters apply for permits to discharge, overwhelming the
permitting agency. My suggestion is that in that hypothetical case the
bureaucrats would scream for more money and people, and the enviros would
support those demands.

I know perfectly well, of course, that it ainagonna happen.

It doesn't take much to overwhelm a govt. dept.. I applied for a new
Permanent Resident card last May '07... and they keep moving the date
backwards - currently the INS are dealing with Feb '07 applications..

--
Molesworth

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 22 May 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Dave said:

I haven't read the case referred to in the article. But if the summary is
accurate and the case related only to ballast water from commercial
vessels,
then this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anything the court said
relating to recreational vessels would be what lawyers call
"dicta"--language having no value whatever as precedent.

I've now read it. The EPA was defending its regulation that had gone
unchallenged since 1973 exempting all vessels from having to get a permit
for discharges normally incident to the operation of a vessel. The enviros
were trying to get it to require commercial shipping lines to get a permit
for discharging ballast water.

The opinion is rather badly written, and includes language much broader
than
required for the case before it (dicta). But it's pretty clear that the
opinion wouldn't cause the EPA to immediately run out and start requiring
recreational boaters to get a permit to wash their boats. They just have
to
rewrite their regulations. The legislation is clearly a case of
grandstanding congress critters passing yet another unnecessary law
thinking
it will get them votes.


Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 23 May 08, Dave wrote:
clearly a case of
grandstanding congress critters passing yet another unnecessary law thinking
it will get them votes.

If that's true (and I don't agree that it is) then it dang sure worked
to get mine.

Rick

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?

The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.

Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.


They've defined themselves as that, so it isn't pejorative unless it's
self-inflicted.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:04:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

Take your pick.


Earth First!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:04:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

Take your pick.


Earth First in league with Bushco! Even better.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement
is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest
way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen



As though one can actually separate the these interests... as opposed to big
oil who actually cares about human welfare...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement
is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest
way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...