# Seattle area radio tower taken down by force.



## dirtyfacedan

All radio has the potential to cause cancer, and other complications in living creatures. Why someone chose this, i don't know..."Opponents have claimed that AM radio waves can harm people and wildlife." AM is simply a transmit mode, like FM, or SSB. Wattage is much more of a factor, as is the frequency, or part of the radio spectrum being transmitted on. Radar from airports, RF from WIFI, RF from TV, and hundreds of other users, as well as RF FROM CELL TOWERS and THE PHONES THEMSELVES and the relative position to the BRAIN when in use, and reproductive organs when not in use, are especially bad due to the relative frequency to MICROWAVE...a frequency that tends to COOK at even low RF LEVELS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health ). There are billions of RF sources all around us at this very moment, and AM radio is the least of our worries. RF occurs naturally from the sun, and space as well. Someone has claimed it was ELF who did it, but who knows. Anyways, here is the article. ( if I was to destroy an antenna tower, or array...HAARP would be my start). Radio is a tool, and has the potential for abuse (as we see in much of the world), and the potential for good, and to help mankind. 

ELF claims it toppled Snohomish radio towers | Top Stories | Seattle News, Local News, Breaking News, Weather | KING5.com


NEAR SNOHOMISH, Wash. – The eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front is taking credit for toppling two radio towers that have been the subject of years of controversy and legal battles.

Now, the FBI is investigating the Friday morning vandalism and the owner of the towers is offering a $25,000 reward.

The towers, owned by station KRKO and known as North Sound 1380, were located on Short School Road and 129th Street Southeast near Snohomish.

"What they used was a machine called an excavator. It has a front arm off the front end of the machine. They stole it out of the yard," Andy Skotdal, president and general manager of KRKO. "They went and attached it to the tower and pushed one of them over and pulled the other one down."

A sign left at the scene said the ELF was responsible. The FBI says it has found no indication that any other groups are involved.

"When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet,” said Jason Crawford, spokesperson for the North American ELF press office.

Skotdal still isn't convinced the ELF is responsible.

"I think it's way too early to jump to any conclusions about who really is responsible for this," said Skotdal.

A radio tower owned by station KRKO, lies on its side after being toppled by vandals.

KRKO is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.

The towers have been at the center of controversy for years. Opponents have claimed that AM radio waves can harm people and wildlife. More recently, nearby residents claim radio signals coming over home phone and intercom lines have increased since KRKO recently boosted its broadcasting power.

When KRKO announced plans to build the towers nine years ago, neighbors like Mark Craven were furious.

"The radio towers were not good for the people that lived around us. They were not a good fit," said Craven, who runs a tourist farm and pumpkin patch near the towers.

A sign reading 'WASSUP SNO CITY? ELFM can be seen through the fog at the site of two Everett, WA radio towers toppled by vandals.

Three times, a hearing examiner recommended the towers not be built because of the view and health concerns. But in the end, the county council sided with the radio station and they went up.

"This is a sad way to get their attention, but maybe it will get their attention and maybe something will happen," said Craven.

Neighbors who spoke out during the fight to prevent the towers from being built say they don’t support the vandalism.

"We don't want them, but this is not the way to see them go,” said Lee Bennett.

There are four towers currently at the location and there have been plans to build two more towers. Skotdal says it will take at least three months to rebuild the vandalized towers. The station is still broadcasting on a backup transmitter.


----------



## hartage

Is it just me or are the elf guys missing one small little point ? If your hand is on the stove and it's burning it.......take your hand off the stove ! Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.

Remember the movie 28 days later ? When some fruitcakes break into some research facility and releases the rage virus that later kills everyone ? What if it's ebola ? (a real virus, and real nasty) When some fruitcakes break into a facility working on finding a vaccine against ebola ? That virus (ebola) released into a major population center will kill 80% or more of the people that contracts it just days after contracting it. 80% of our people can die in just a few weeks. No zombies, your guts just turn into soup and you die. 

I've done my fair share of damage when I was a kid to similar equipment. (statute of limitations has long past) So I'm not one to talk. But that was just it, when I was selfish, ignorant and just a total turd. I hope these elf guys aren't adults.


----------



## jdrakeh

This puts these particular ELF members in the same category of Stupid as clueless black bloc protestors who think that throwing bricks through the front glass of a Wal-Mart store is going to topple capitalism. _Real_ results require _real_ action, not petty vandalism.


----------



## hartage

It's the idea and the method behind it. Read the article, those towers were a legal battleground. When they couldn't get their way they acted like kids and IMPOSED what they wanted on others with force. (toppling the towers)

What's the difference between them and say the KKK, or muslim terrorists ? They all use force when they don't get their way.

Use of force are for mental midgets that can't use reason to support their position properly. Cops use force, need I say more ?


----------



## ent_ink

For the record this story was posted on Slashdot, a news service for geeks and as such most of the comments are about the health effects of AM Radio, or lack thereof.

Slashdot Technology Story | ELF Knocks Down AM Towers To Save Earth, Intercoms

Towards the bottom of the page though the comments move to the ELF itself and groups that take direct action in this way.


----------



## macks

The difference between the groups is the difference between violating the rights of people and property crimes. To my knowledge no ELF action has intentionally harmed a human being. (If you know a case where this isn't true please share it) The KKK and ELF are totally different on many levels.

The article also says that there was strong opposition to the towers in the community but the city council eventually sided with the radio company. Perhaps the city council did not represent the needs of the community but their own interests. Of course I don't know if that is true or not (and in this case the article makes it seem like the community at large doesn't support the towers or the removal of them), but don't be so quick to condemn other peoples' actions when you don't know much about the situation. The news only tells one version of the story.. 

If you're all for industrial expansion and radio towers on every hilltop I guess we can't really continue this conversation because I won't be able to understand your point of view. But if you want to talk about the different ways of accomplishing the same goal and how effective they are, by all means. I agree this kind of thing isn't going to save the world, but at least it's a change, a small hitch in a giant deathmarch to our self destruction.

Kind of playing devil's advocate here for the sake of conversation since this is something I think about a lot and go back and forth on.


----------



## jdrakeh

rememberusername said:


> . . . but I don't think these people believe they just started the crumbling needed for the "revolution"



Sadly, that very accurately describes a large majority of Black Bloc participants I have known.


----------



## LovelyAcorns

> Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.


You're right. They could easily go live out in the middle of desert.



> some fruitcakes


Kill yourself. 


> What if it's ebola ?


How about this: stop injecting animals with ebola. You don't get to claim innocence when you created the hostage situation. Though I do love how you go and on about force and then you use animal research as one of your comparison (with the other being zombies).



> some fruitcakes


Once again, consider suicide. 



> What's the difference between them and say the KKK


_Really_ now? You can't find any differences? You're not just throwing that in because its emotionally charged? 



> Use of force are for mental midgets


I'm really hoping you are a hipster trying to use irony.



> Cops use force, need I say more ?


 Logical fallacy, cops also wear blue clothes. "Force" is a meaningless word when taken out of context. 



Woohoo to the action. AM waves aren't exactly my greatest fear, but we could probably do without. I'm more excited by the damage to a media outlet. When zombie movies become a valid reference point for political arguments, you know something needs to be done.
I'm a little confused by this line though:


> What they used was a machine called an excavator.


Is excavator really outside most people's vocabulary?


----------



## hartage

Lovely Acorns

Since you are so quick to tell me to kill myself I'll tell you this. I'll kill you before I'll kill myself.

You sure used the word KILL awfully quick. Nobody else even mentioned that word before you did. Don't you think that is a little severe ? Just a tad ?


----------



## LovelyAcorns

hartage said:


> Lovely Acorns
> 
> Since you are so quick to tell me to kill myself I'll tell you this. I'll kill you before I'll kill myself.
> 
> You sure used the word KILL awfully quick. Nobody else even mentioned that word before you did. Don't you think that is a little severe ? Just a tad ?




Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.

I fail to see why I'm only allowed to use words that have already been said. And yes, it was a little severe, but as long pretentious privileged (more new words! Wow!) fuckers like you feel comfortable using fruitcake as an insult, I'm going to being advocating severe viewpoints.



And rememberusername, I love you. There's a certain eccentricity in your posts that I fabulous.


----------



## finn

Okay, arguments that come out of "I saw this science fiction movie where..." are not valid arguments. I mean the whole torture thing was justified by a fictional TV series character named Jack Bauer, and that hasn't helped anyone except for the FOX network. The people who live there don't want it there because of health concerns, so destroying it is fine by me. Maybe I should say killing it.

Don't want to be too slow in using that word. And I'd rather someone use force than the passive aggressive behavior that cowards use.


----------



## hartage

Force is used by idiots that can't reason. When you reason people usually understand and agree. As an example the green movement. When it was done by idiots before nobody paid attention. When sane people used reason to support their position people agreed. Now it has become mainstream and far more effective. 

Using the word kill is never a good idea. Even if you intend to do something bad. Besides, some people are close to the edge already. Threatening someone or even the perception of threat would push them over the edge. Who wins then ? The dead guy or the guy in prison ?


----------



## hartage

LovelyAcorns said:


> Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.
> 
> I fail to see why I'm only allowed to use words that have already been said. And yes, it was a little severe, but as long pretentious privileged (more new words! Wow!) fuckers like you feel comfortable using fruitcake as an insult, I'm going to being advocating severe viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> And rememberusername, I love you. There's a certain eccentricity in your posts that I fabulous.



Yeah you are a fucking idiot. Don't put your own hangups on other people's posts. I used fruitcake as a term used for people that can't think straight or behave sanely. 

I've gone to sacramento to protest prop 8 at the capitol. I am active in the LGBT community here in support of gay rights, and I'm straight. 

You are going to tell me to kill myself just because I disagree with you ? You've got some SERIOUS MENTAL DEFECTS.


----------



## finn

Hartage, you've obviously never been out on the streets or stepped up in defense of a friend in order to be such a pacifist.

Oh, I noticed you added some new messages for LovelyAcorns. If you're an LGBT ally, you know better than to use the insult fruitcake. It doesn't matter how many rallies you go to, or how active you are in your community, you are insulting people because they think queer (i.e. they don't think straight). And then you go onto midgets, as in mental midgets. I could go on, but instead I'm going to ask you to stop these insults or I will do something to stop it. (nonviolently I might add!) Notice that you are the only one throwing insults here.


----------



## hartage

finn said:


> Hartage, you've obviously never been out on the streets or stepped up in defense of a friend in order to be such a pacifist.
> 
> Oh, I noticed you added some new messages for LovelyAcorns. If you're an LGBT ally, you know better than to use the insult fruitcake. It doesn't matter how many rallies you go to, or how active you are in your community, you are insulting people because they think queer (i.e. they don't think straight). And then you go onto midgets, as in mental midgets. I could go on, but instead I'm going to ask you to stop these insults or I will do something to stop it. (nonviolently I might add!) Notice that you are the only one throwing insults here.



I didn't use fruitcake as a term to refer to gays. I support gay rights. No I don't just go to the rally I'm part of organizing it, getting word out. Rally helps, shows opinion and support. What do you think would happen if instead of just rallying we burnt the place down ? One helps, the other is just stupidity. 

Fruitcake does not even come to my mind as anything refering to gay at all. I use it to refer to people that impose their will to others with force. How is it other people's hangups get pinned on me ?

Pacifist ? I am far from a pacifist. I just understand the proper use of force. Applied in a wrong manner it does far more harm than good.


----------



## hartage

LovelyAcorns said:


> Oh no. A death threat over the internet? I'm terrified.




Oh and just to clarify. That was no death threat, that would be too much like you and I'm not like you. What I said was to say the likely hood of me killing myself is next to zero. I'd do that to you before I'd do that to myself. And no I wouldn't do that to you either as I dislike prison. So no not a threat. Read the words carefully before you jump to assumptions.


----------



## macks

hartage said:


> Force is used by idiots that can't reason. When you reason people usually understand and agree. As an example the green movement. When it was done by idiots before nobody paid attention. When sane people used reason to support their position people agreed. Now it has become mainstream and far more effective.



Can you back any of this up by anything but your own opnion? You're throwing around some harsh words with no support. Maybe what has been tried and failed at before was a necessary step to create a more effective movement. And how effective is this new green movement anyway? In order to answer this question you have to ask what they want to accomplish. If the answer is lots of new products that are marketable to a new consumer group that wants to feel better about killing the planet then yes, it is very effective. I'm not convinced that adressing the tough issues that would lead to a real decline in the rate that we're destroying our enviornment is really at the forefront of the new 'green' movement. At least not in practice. 


It would be sweet if we could talk more about the radio tower thing.. 

Here's another article:
The Associated Press: 2 radio towers in Washington state toppled


Seems to me like the science isn't really compelling for their argument, but hey kudos for doing something! I wonder if the owners' insurance will cover the new one.


----------



## hartage

macks said:


> Can you back any of this up by anything but your own opnion? You're throwing around some harsh words with no support. Maybe what has been tried and failed at before was a necessary step to create a more effective movement. And how effective is this new green movement anyway? In order to answer this question you have to ask what they want to accomplish. If the answer is lots of new products that are marketable to a new consumer group that wants to feel better about killing the planet then yes, it is very effective. I'm not convinced that adressing the tough issues that would lead to a real decline in the rate that we're destroying our enviornment is really at the forefront of the new 'green' movement. At least not in practice.
> 
> 
> It would be sweet if we could talk more about the radio tower thing..
> 
> Here's another article:
> The Associated Press: 2 radio towers in Washington state toppled
> 
> 
> Seems to me like the science isn't really compelling for their argument, but hey kudos for doing something! I wonder if the owners' insurance will cover the new one.



When something is fringe a few thousand people do it the net effect is very small. When it goes main stream even small things become mountains. As an example lead. A while back the only people that knew lead was bad were health workers and lead industry workers. The amount of lead going into our environment through paint, gasoline and other ways were hundreds of tons a year. Lead being a problem and the opinion of not using it has gone mainstream a while back. Now there is no lead in paint or gasoline. The tonnage of lead released into the environment has reduced significantly.

Knocking down a couple of towers won't do squat in the grand scheme of things. It will however damage the position of those that are trying to use reason to convince the masses. It takes masses of people to do world wide damage. It will take the masses to repair it. Reputation, opinion and reason are far more effective than violence or force in convincing the masses.


----------



## veggieguy12

hartage said:


> Is it just me or are the elf guys missing one small little point ? If your hand is on the stove and it's burning it.......take your hand off the stove ! Nobody is forcing them to be around the towers.



Yes, it's just you, or perhaps not only you, but indeed you are totally missing the point.
The tower makers and the courts and the police are indeed forcing people to be around radio antennae, and billboards, and highways, and power substations, etc.
Imagine someone making this argument: "Is it just me, or are the Navajo missing the point? Nobody's forcing them to stay on the land that the US Cavalry wants, in fact they're trying to remove them. The natives' use of force is for mental midgets; the Indians should just argue their case in a US court."
As you must know, this system is not geared to hear all parties equally, nor give all sides equal or fair regard. This system is insane, destroying the very landbase upon which we all depend.
Your comments show that you don't realize that the US Government is a government of occupation, and that Civilization is committing a holocaust of the planet.



hartage said:


> ...those towers were a legal battleground. When they couldn't get their way they acted like kids and IMPOSED what they wanted on others with force. (toppling the towers)
> ...Use of force are for mental midgets that can't use reason to support their position properly.



Your assertion here supposes 1) that the Law ("legal battleground" as you call it) is not ultimately backed by force - which is completely false, and I'll bet that you can see this if you try; and 2) that mere reason and rational debate can be had and that the best argument will prevail. Do you really believe that?


----------



## hartage

veggieguy12 said:


> Yes, it's just you, or perhaps not only you, but indeed you are totally missing the point.
> The tower makers and the courts and the police are indeed forcing people to be around radio antennae, and billboards, and highways, and power substations, etc.
> Imagine someone making this argument: "Is it just me, or are the Navajo missing the point? Nobody's forcing them to stay on the land that the US Cavalry wants, in fact they're trying to remove them. The natives' use of force is for mental midgets; the Indians should just argue their case in a US court."
> As you must know, this system is not geared to hear all parties equally, nor give all sides equal or fair regard. This system is insane, destroying the very landbase upon which we all depend.
> Your comments show that you don't realize that the US Government is a government of occupation, and that Civilization is committing a holocaust of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion here supposes 1) that the Law ("legal battleground" as you call it) is not ultimately backed by force - which is completely false, and I'll bet that you can see this if you try; and 2) that mere reason and rational debate can be had and that the best argument will prevail. Do you really believe that?



Since you used the navajo as an example......

Look what happened when they used force ? What was being done was wrong but them using force ended with them being slaughtered. Today the indians use the court system and they have abilities most others don't have. (to gamble on their own land) They are acheiving much more success with equality when they DON'T take up arms or use force.

I do see your point. And we are both on the same side. Except the methods used to acheive the goal we both want.


----------



## veggieguy12

hartage said:


> Force is used by idiots that can't reason. When you reason people usually understand and agree.



Ask anyone who's ever been a victim of force how they feel about their failure to reason properly with their "mental midget" attacker. A rapist, a brutal cop, a Conquistador, etc. is not there to listen to your brilliant argument, they are there to get what they want. I like the idea behind your position here, but the evidence shows that while Might may not make Right, Might certainly does accomplish goals. And so if your goal is to prevent the destruction of this planet, then perhaps you should consider the use of Might as something more strategic and even necessary. If there is any human future, if there are whales and butterflies and polar bears and redwood trees 200 years from now, these creatures will simply be thankful that they have a living planet to inhabit; whatever means we employ now to secure that future will be inconsequential detail.



hartage said:


> When something is fringe a few thousand people do it the net effect is very small. When it goes main stream even small things become mountains.



The first statement is true, but also very obvious, no? While I think it's apparent that downing these radio towers does no serious or sustained damage to the ecocide being perpetrated, is one (or are many) to sit idly by because they cannot make a meaningful and substantial impact? Maybe. Or maybe instead of waiting to do that one perfect attack sometime in the future, people ought just do whatever they can, even in limited ways. I certainly don't think this toppling of transmitters was any worse an act than petitioning to lawmakers or rallying streetside.



hartage said:


> ...use reason to convince the masses. It takes masses of people to do world wide damage.
> ...Reputation, opinion and reason are far more effective than violence or force in convincing the masses.



Commercial fishing is depleting the oceans of entire species of aquatic life; what compelling argument do you think you can make which will be reasonable enough - assuming it could even reach the masses, which is another flaw in your argument ('Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own the presses.') - to make fisherman stop venturing out to sea, or have processing factories close, or have consumers stop purchasing fish?
What argument could you make to have a billion people get sterilized and not add to the human population? What reasoned appeal can you make to convince the masses that farming should be abandoned; agricultural plots should be (re)turned into the wild, unamanaged landscapes of diverse flora and fauna they were before human manipulation for food; that forests should not be cut for paper, housing lumber, toilet paper?
You really think that Palestinians have no reasonable, logical case for sovereignty in their homeland? Or is it more just a matter of they don't possess the means to defend their homeland and expel the occupation forces of Israel?
You really think that the Seminole and Sioux and Cherokee, or the Dutch, French, Polish didn't have a good argument, or couldn't appeal to the kind United States or German armies? Or would you admit it was just that they couldn't repel or expel the invaders and make them sorry for their incursions?


----------



## hartage

veggieguy12 said:


> Commercial fishing is depleting the oceans of entire species of aquatic life; what compelling argument do you think you can make which will be reasonable enough - assuming it could even reach the masses, which is another flaw in your argument ('Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own the presses.') - to make fisherman stop venturing out to sea, or have processing factories close, or have consumers stop purchasing fish?
> What argument could you make to have a billion people get sterilized and not add to the human population? What reasoned appeal can you make to convince the masses that farming should be abandoned; agricultural plots should be (re)turned into the wild, unamanaged landscapes of diverse flora and fauna they were before human manipulation for food; that forests should not be cut for paper, housing lumber, toilet paper?
> You really think that Palestinians have no reasonable, logical case for sovereignty in their homeland? Or is it more just a matter of they don't possess the means to defend their homeland and expel the occupation forces of Israel?
> You really think that the Seminole and Sioux and Cherokee, or the Dutch, French, Polish didn't have a good argument, or couldn't appeal to the kind United States or German armies? Or would you admit it was just that they couldn't repel or expel the invaders and make them sorry for their incursions?



Ocean depletion. The argument is simple and working. Reduction of fish stocks, reduction of yearly harvest pointing to impending collapse. This has gotten the attention of the government, the people, and even the commercial fishing industry itself. Right now there is a total ban on salmon fishing on our coast and oceans. More and more coastal areas are being marked as off-limits even to recreational fishing. Reason works. Imagine what would happen if the chosen method was militant ? Such as sinking some boats or something. You would get LE out there and people would ignore whatever argument you had no matter how valid.

Human population. People have taken notice of that for a long time. I'll point to China and their 1 child per couple regulation. That government understands. It is not impossible to use reason in fact most times it's the only effective method to promote change.

Seminole, Sioux, etc. I said somewhere in this thread that I am not against use of force but it must be the proper use of force. If you are one person and you are up against 2,000 well armed troops you use REASON. If you are even 1,000 well armed well trained people up against 2,000 well armed troops you have the option of threat of force, reason and as a last resort actual use of force. (praying the other side is not willing to incur casualties) Lase scenario you are 6,000 well armed people vs 2,000 well armed troops. Force is much more of an option along with threat of force and reason. You now outnumber the opposing force 3 to 1 giving you the ability to overpower even a defended position. Back to the subject. If you are fighting a much larger, more powerful force.... general society backed by LE and military force the best and often only option is to use reason. Where has this worked ? Civil rights movement. WORDS worked, reason worked. Using force in these circumstances will achieve being labled a nut or outright squished neither of which are productive for change. 

Ghandi was not wrong. He managed so much with so little. No force was used and he moved a mountain.


----------



## veggieguy12

You see what you want, but not what is.

I really can't say any more to someone who says "People have taken notice of [human overpopulation] for a long time" as if something is being done about it.
You can point to Chinese law and to me and fifty people who are concerned about population overshoot and have been sterilized, but that doesn't change the fact that human overpopulation has been worsening exponentially for 100 years, and that it is decimating the planet. It isn't changing. And furthermore, Chinese law _IS_ *force*. It isn't an appeal, an appeal wouldn't work. It didn't, it doesn't, and it won't. It's not for lack of reasonable argument that the Chinese started _en*forc*ing_ birthing limits.

People will not give up their cellphones and laptops and iPods for the betterment of the wilderness; do you honestly think people will forego plumbing and refrigeration and a wide variety of foods on supermarket shelves? Wake up, time is a luxury we (and a billion other species) don't have.


----------



## hartage

veggieguy12 said:


> You see what you want, but not what is.
> 
> I really can't say any more to someone who says "People have taken notice of [human overpopulation] for a long time" as if something is being done about it.
> You can point to Chinese law and to me and fifty people who are concerned about population overshoot and have been sterilized, but that doesn't change the fact that human overpopulation has been worsening exponentially for 100 years, and that it is decimating the planet. It isn't changing. And furthermore, Chinese law _IS_ *force*. It isn't an appeal, an appeal wouldn't work. It didn't, it doesn't, and it won't. It's not for lack of reasonable argument that the Chinese started _en*forc*ing_ birthing limits.
> 
> People will not give up their cellphones and laptops and iPods for the betterment of the wilderness; do you honestly think people will forego plumbing and refrigeration and a wide variety of foods on supermarket shelves? Wake up, time is a luxury we (and a billion other species) don't have.



We are just going to have to disagree on this one. Life on this planet has withstood and survived and thrived after asteroid strikes that wiped out all life on the surface. Super volcano eruptions that blotted out the sun and killed all plantlife on the surface.

Comparatively our sins as humans are insignificant compared to the challenges life has overcome. Have you seen some of the closed industrial plants ? The animals, plants, nature in general are well into reclaiming the area including breaking up the concrete and turning the steel into natural rust.

It's not right to use our resources past the point of sustainability. But it's also not right to paint a picture of urgency that is comparative to the anihilation of everything because we use cell phones.


This happens often to me. The right wing hates me for my save our resources stance. The left wing hates me because what ? I support dialog and reason instead of force to spread conserving our environment ? I guess I'm just not EXTREME enough for either side. Sad part is it takes people like me to actually get the job done instead of people on both sides just being interested in fighting each other.


----------



## hartage

rememberusername said:


> That leaves out rivers I assume?



Actually it does include rivers, plenty of people are quite pissed because of this ban. Not sure if it applies to sovereign Indian land or not. It was the entire US coast and waters back in 08 now 09 two states california and oregon are continuing the ban.

I mixed up the years thought it was a few states before and all states now. It is all states 08 two states 09.


----------



## hartage

Yeah, california and oregon continued the ban for 09 but washington lifted the ban for 09 but was part of the ban in 08.


----------



## macks

hartage said:


> Ocean depletion. The argument is simple and working. Reduction of fish stocks, reduction of yearly harvest pointing to impending collapse. This has gotten the attention of the government, the people, and even the commercial fishing industry itself. Right now there is a total ban on salmon fishing on our coast and oceans. More and more coastal areas are being marked as off-limits even to recreational fishing. Reason works. Imagine what would happen if the chosen method was militant ? Such as sinking some boats or something. You would get LE out there and people would ignore whatever argument you had no matter how valid.



The ban on salmon fishing is because the Sacramento river is being used up by people. This is the only place that I know of that salmon fishing is banned. There is still commercial fisheries in Alaska, but that is highly regulated. There's many many many examples of impending doom scenarios in the ocean (even with some forms of regulation in place) that I could bore you with, but the main idea is that your 'reason works' argument doesn't really hold here. A reasonable solution to restore the salmon population is not being explored, thus it is not working. I don't mean to be a downer, but the oceans are fucked. And we don't have the tools right now to do much about it.


----------



## veggieguy12

*hartage*, you've twice now said, essentially, "Reason works: government is compelling compliance with the threat of punishment. See?, reasoned appeals succeed again!"
Or do you think that Chinese birthers or American fishermen will simply be lectured until they understand the wisdom behind the arguments to not reproduce or catch fish?

That force works is plainly evident when you see that anyone would want government to uphold/en*force* any law, because governments are typically the strongest forces arrayed against the populations.

This fact (gone unaddressed AGAIN like you just don't get it) 
+ previous points made against your position and not rebutted
= I'm done here.

"Life" has survived ELE asteroids, so a couple rapes in Atlanta are no biggie! Why fuss over the murder of five people when the Nazis killed twelve million? Life will persevere!
I'm not even sure what is failing in the mental processing when someone says shit like this, so I don't know quite how to address it.

Clearly you don't feel the genocidal devastation personally (nor do I), because I'm sure if your habitat was being eradicated, your brethren and loved ones being exterminated, or your food source(s) being eliminated, you would hardly say that the transgressors' sins are minimal compared to the extinctions of history.
Perhaps it's just that the rest of the life on the planet sees the inevitability of asteroid collisions or planetary orbit changes as obviously different and thus incomparable to the willful destruction wrought by Civilization, for reasons not the least of which is that previous effects have been felt equally around the globe, and that the cause was not domestic (whereas now we see a fraction of humans - a small percentage of Earth's life - perpetrating damage the effects of which they are delayed from feeling).


----------



## hartage

macks said:


> The ban on salmon fishing is because the Sacramento river is being used up by people. This is the only place that I know of that salmon fishing is banned. There is still commercial fisheries in Alaska, but that is highly regulated. There's many many many examples of impending doom scenarios in the ocean (even with some forms of regulation in place) that I could bore you with, but the main idea is that your 'reason works' argument doesn't really hold here. A reasonable solution to restore the salmon population is not being explored, thus it is not working. I don't mean to be a downer, but the oceans are fucked. And we don't have the tools right now to do much about it.



It's not just the sacramento river. In 08 it was the whole west coast read here All salmon fishing banned on West Coast For 09 it was continued by 2 states or and cali Salmon Fishing Ban to Continue Off California, Oregon : Indybay .

How does "reason works" not hold ? Several industries are halted for at least a year in 2 states 2 years. It would be like you being told you can't go to work for at least a year maybe 2. Or if you dumpster dive, that you couldn't do that for a year maybe two. How is it reason does not work when such a drastic measure is already being taken ? The sea otter that was basically wiped out save for a few dozen are repopulating and spreading up and down the coast. Sea lions back in the early 1920's were down to the last 1,000 all along our cost. Now they are around 17,000 in california alone around 3000 in oregon and around 1,000 in washington. Tell me again how reason does not work ?

Ok, so what is your alternative ? Use force ? Escalate it till the military is involved ? Keep escalating it till everyone is hunted down and put in prison ? Just how are these people going to further the cause from prison ? Down here in SD elf burned down two developments. In one of them people almost died, barely got out in time. All of the elf involved scattered. They were all hunted down and brought to court. They ALL called what they did at least rash and regret doing that. But why run to begin with if what they did was so right ? 

Ghandi overturned an entire government through peaceful means. He had the guts to KNOW he's right and stand right there and take whatever was coming to him. Civil rights, women's rights have been fought and won through reason. How can you even think reason does not work ?


----------



## hartage

veggieguy12 said:


> *hartage*, you've twice now said, essentially, "Reason works: government is compelling compliance with the threat of punishment. See?, reasoned appeals succeed again!"
> Or do you think that Chinese birthers or American fishermen will simply be lectured until they understand the wisdom behind the arguments to not reproduce or catch fish?
> 
> That force works is plainly evident when you see that anyone would want government to uphold/en*force* any law, because governments are typically the strongest forces arrayed against the populations.
> 
> This fact (gone unaddressed AGAIN like you just don't get it)
> + previous points made against your position and not rebutted
> = I'm done here.
> 
> "Life" has survived ELE asteroids, so a couple rapes in Atlanta are no biggie! Why fuss over the murder of five people when the Nazis killed twelve million? Life will persevere!
> I'm not even sure what is failing in the mental processing when someone says shit like this, so I don't know quite how to address it.
> 
> Clearly you don't feel the genocidal devastation personally (nor do I), because I'm sure if your habitat was being eradicated, your brethren and loved ones being exterminated, or your food source(s) being eliminated, you would hardly say that the transgressors' sins are minimal compared to the extinctions of history.
> Perhaps it's just that the rest of the life on the planet sees the inevitability of asteroid collisions or planetary orbit changes as obviously different and thus incomparable to the willful destruction wrought by Civilization, for reasons not the least of which is that previous effects have been felt equally around the globe, and that the cause was not domestic (whereas now we see a fraction of humans - a small percentage of Earth's life - perpetrating damage the effects of which they are delayed from feeling).



I'll just speak plainly. I don't address the points I simply do not understand and make zero sense to me. I'm going to condense my position and simplify it as much as possible.

Fighting sucks and gets everyone nowhere. We are all on the same planet and have to be around each other save for the few people living alone on an island. Trying to force your opponent gets them to try to force you (perhaps with more success than you). Reason is the only effective method. * Show me one instance where the use of force has helped the environmental cause ?*

All I can say is go ahead and bring down towers, burn up developments to your hearts content. When you are hunted down and put in prison the rest of us will continue the fight. Eventually the other side will understand and agree. When that happens you'll still be in prison rotting away. In the meanwhile your actions of burning things up or bringing things down just makes it an even harder fight for the rest of us using reason. If anything else you are helping the WRONG side. Your just giving the other side more reason to fight us instead of listening to what we have to say and them understanding. When they understand and we all work towards the same goal THAT is when shit gets done.

By doing shit like burning things up and bringing stuff down you might as well just call yourself a conservative republican. That is the cause you are helping.


----------



## macks

hartage said:


> It's not just the sacramento river. In 08 it was the whole west coast read here All salmon fishing banned on West Coast For 09 it was continued by 2 states or and cali Salmon Fishing Ban to Continue Off California, Oregon : Indybay .
> 
> How does "reason works" not hold ? Several industries are halted for at least a year in 2 states 2 years. It would be like you being told you can't go to work for at least a year maybe 2. Or if you dumpster dive, that you couldn't do that for a year maybe two. How is it reason does not work when such a drastic measure is already being taken ? The sea otter that was basically wiped out save for a few dozen are repopulating and spreading up and down the coast. Sea lions back in the early 1920's were down to the last 1,000 all along our cost. Now they are around 17,000 in california alone around 3000 in oregon and around 1,000 in washington. Tell me again how reason does not work ?
> 
> Ok, so what is your alternative ? Use force ? Escalate it till the military is involved ? Keep escalating it till everyone is hunted down and put in prison ? Just how are these people going to further the cause from prison ? Down here in SD elf burned down two developments. In one of them people almost died, barely got out in time. All of the elf involved scattered. They were all hunted down and brought to court. They ALL called what they did at least rash and regret doing that. But why run to begin with if what they did was so right ?
> 
> Ghandi overturned an entire government through peaceful means. He had the guts to KNOW he's right and stand right there and take whatever was coming to him. Civil rights, women's rights have been fought and won through reason. How can you even think reason does not work ?




I'm not arguing that reason doesn't work. I meant that the situation with the salmon isn't working. Not that it matters too much but I will offer you a short course on fish biology presently. 

Salmon are anadromous fish. That means they spend part of their life cycle in freshwater, and part of their life cycle in marine habitat. There are three major stocks of salmon in our part of the Northwest: the Sacramento river, Klamath and Columbia river populations. In the Sacramento river, the enviornment has been defouled by humans such that the salmon population no longer live to make it to the ocean. Since this population travels as far as Washington up the West coast during its marine phase, fishing was banned in order to avoid killing the remaining reproducers of this population, which will still return to the Sacramento river to spawn. This is the reason that the fishing is closed for salmon near here, because the Sacramento river is fucked up and if they fish any more now, they will kill all of the fish and not have any more to fish in the future. Which is worse than the current situation that there may not be any fish to fish in the future regardless.

Also - if you read both of those articles they point out that fishing did not cause the decline, and they also don't point out a solution for the Sacramento river restoration. However, I'm sure that someone is working on something somewhere and that reason will convince all those factories and golf courses that they don't need to use that water anyway.

If you're confused about any more enviornmental issues in the future be sure to let me know.

However, as a general rule, the people that are making decisions about the enviornment are making decisions about how it is to be properly managed as a resource. There is no room in this system for thinking of these places and things outside of utility. Sea otters simply got too expensive to hunt when in such low numbers, otherwise they would have been totally extinct. For an example of that, see the sea cow. We ate all of those a couple of hundred years ago. I don't really see that as reason, it's like fuck everything up as much as we want and then pretend to give a shit once it's gone. 

I don't have a solution, if I could come up with a solution being as uninvolved in these issues as I am, someone else would have come up with one a long time ago. But I do believe that I have the ability to become involved and help make things better, which makes a lot more sense to me than naively believing that it's all gravy. Cause it's not.

Alright, anyway, you should re-read veggieguy's posts about force in our society. It makes a lot of sense. 

What do you do when you go reason with someone who wants to bulldoze your house to build a freeway and they tell you to fuck off? Do you then try to reason with the guy driving the bulldozer? The one thing that I really love that crimethinc put out was this little sticker that had guys in suits and breifcases on it and it said : THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU. 

And they don't.


----------



## hartage

macks said:


> I'm not arguing that reason doesn't work. I meant that the situation with the salmon isn't working. Not that it matters too much but I will offer you a short course on fish biology presently.
> 
> Salmon are anadromous fish. That means they spend part of their life cycle in freshwater, and part of their life cycle in marine habitat. There are three major stocks of salmon in our part of the Northwest: the Sacramento river, Klamath and Columbia river populations. In the Sacramento river, the enviornment has been defouled by humans such that the salmon population no longer live to make it to the ocean. Since this population travels as far as Washington up the West coast during its marine phase, fishing was banned in order to avoid killing the remaining reproducers of this population, which will still return to the Sacramento river to spawn. This is the reason that the fishing is closed for salmon near here, because the Sacramento river is fucked up and if they fish any more now, they will kill all of the fish and not have any more to fish in the future. Which is worse than the current situation that there may not be any fish to fish in the future regardless.
> 
> Also - if you read both of those articles they point out that fishing did not cause the decline, and they also don't point out a solution for the Sacramento river restoration. However, I'm sure that someone is working on something somewhere and that reason will convince all those factories and golf courses that they don't need to use that water anyway.
> 
> If you're confused about any more enviornmental issues in the future be sure to let me know.
> 
> However, as a general rule, the people that are making decisions about the enviornment are making decisions about how it is to be properly managed as a resource. There is no room in this system for thinking of these places and things outside of utility. Sea otters simply got too expensive to hunt when in such low numbers, otherwise they would have been totally extinct. For an example of that, see the sea cow. We ate all of those a couple of hundred years ago. I don't really see that as reason, it's like fuck everything up as much as we want and then pretend to give a shit once it's gone.
> 
> I don't have a solution, if I could come up with a solution being as uninvolved in these issues as I am, someone else would have come up with one a long time ago. But I do believe that I have the ability to become involved and help make things better, which makes a lot more sense to me than naively believing that it's all gravy. Cause it's not.
> 
> Alright, anyway, you should re-read veggieguy's posts about force in our society. It makes a lot of sense.
> 
> What do you do when you go reason with someone who wants to bulldoze your house to build a freeway and they tell you to fuck off? Do you then try to reason with the guy driving the bulldozer? The one thing that I really love that crimethinc put out was this little sticker that had guys in suits and breifcases on it and it said : THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU.
> 
> And they don't.



The reason I pointed out the salmon thing is not that it was a solution. Only that it is a drastic step taken that shows people are finally understanding the extent of the situation. It is nothing but drastic to tell families "you can't earn a living for the next year or two". It was to show that reason is making progress, people are understanding and doing something about it. Studies in fertilizer runoff and reduction have or are being done. People are more and more understanding of the situation.

I disagree with your assessment of us as a community. The "green" movement is relatively new as we know it today. In what, 20 years the problems of unsustainable living has come to the forefront of public consciousness. One by one industries that were previously running amok are now being reigned in. The emissions of 1 car from the 80's is average 220 ppm in hydrocarbons (unburned fuel) being released. Today a pzev car must maintain less than .5 ppm over 15 years and 150,000 miles. 1 80's car is equivalent to 440 of today's cars. That is the figure for average 80's cars not even gross polluters. Compared to one of those it could be thousands of cars to 1.

We are as a community are learning and changing. Twenty years in the life of a nation is a blink of an eye. The rate of change is also still accelerating. In the next 20 years far more reductions will happen as people's understanding grows even faster. 

More change needs to happen yes. But let's not be blind to what we've already accomplished in changing people's minds and habits.


----------



## macks

Well, I sure hope you're right but I don't think you are. 

For further reading I reccomend Derek Jensen's "As the World Burns: 50 Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial" (gets a little rediculus at the end but the rest is good)

Wait, did you mention 'pzev' cars? Like 'partial zero emissions vehicle' cars? Take a second to read that again: Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle. That doesn't even make sense! Smells like a marketing campaign to me.


----------



## hartage

macks said:


> Well, I sure hope you're right but I don't think you are.
> 
> For further reading I reccomend Derek Jensen's "As the World Burns: 50 Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial" (gets a little rediculus at the end but the rest is good)
> 
> Wait, did you mention 'pzev' cars? Like 'partial zero emissions vehicle' cars? Take a second to read that again: Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle. That doesn't even make sense! Smells like a marketing campaign to me.



The numbers are staggeringly low. .5 ppm (parts per million) a HALF ppm or 1 part per two million is an incredibly low number. That is also the MAXIMUM upper limit. The next time you fry an egg or really cook anything. You would be releasing more hydrocarbons than a tankfull of gas run through a pzev vehicle. Remember, crude oil comes from organic material much like what you just ate today.


----------



## IBRRHOBO

wow! i can't believe that i've missed out on this drama! fuck i LIVE for this kind of shit! hell, veggieguy and i argue all the time (i still consider him a friend and hope he does i as well), but look at the rest of the cast: macks, lovely acorns, rememberusername...fuck it's an all star cast! bah ha ha

hmnn, hartage. i can usually read a person through their vernacular (written or spoken) as i did it for a career in the service, but you're an interesting one. we should spar one day! 

yeah, usually i'm all for property rights being defended to the death. telecommunications (especially amplified modulation (AM) as it is HELLA better than FM when ur on a train) is one of the sacred cows of mine. after reading the articles, though, i'm not so sure i side w/the radio giants here. let's get the trivia out of the way, though, shall we? society requires law and order...this includes anarchy. go no further than what does an anarchist collective do if a woman w/child is brutally raped and murdered? there, see? penalty assessed, law and order, blah blah. 

so, in this case it would appear that first the radio towers are an eye sore. the science behind the arguements are rather flimsy so i won't call it a public health issue. the community, by and large wanted them gone, the radio stations could've updated them with new towers or mod transmitters and didn't and the commissioners remained complicent. so ELF, always the media hungry adolescent, ran to the rescue.

now, had someone in the community done the dirt, i'd back it %100. if the ELF person is from there, fine. and once again, i support the community's right to self determination even if their goverment refuses to act (hell that's how the US came into existence).

i don't support ELF. never had much respect for them for a lot of unimportant reasons. if you're gonna fight a war don't be opportunistic about it. see, that's kinda intersting that the whole navajo thing came up. now we and this means each and every one of you reading this in the US, fought a war for this country against the indian nations [insert whatever pc term needed as i don't know of any] and won. _victori spolia._ that nice chair and terminal ur using is compliments of men and women like me who put our ass on the lines. yet the theme seems to be that it was unjust. upon examination of the ELF war, though, it's just? let me clairify that this is about the towers and not the navajo, ELF or who-the-fuck ever. just a footnote there as i couldn't resist! lol

i think, though, that toppling the towers gave some pretty good instant gratification (refer here to the DSM Vol. VI i think is the latest). see the problems w/instant gratification is that it only lasts a minute. i sure hope NO one is ignorant enough to believe that the radio station will not simply use the insurance money which ELF helps pay as they pay taxes when they buy fuel, beer, etc. to build newer, BIGGER ones!

sadly, it's loose-loose. it's a price that's paid if you have/like a cell phone, StP forum as u use a computer or telecommunications. and it's not going to change. look, the gov't tracks these folks down. i PROMISE you that ECHELON and DSM1000 (CARNIVORE/OMIVORE/DRAGONWARE SUITE) is monitoring this thread through packet sniffing. that's not to say that dissent is illegal, but when you decide to topple bullshit like AM radio towers, it's not the wisest allocation of manpower.


----------



## hartage

IBRRHOBO said:


> wow! i can't believe that i've missed out on this drama! fuck i LIVE for this kind of shit! hell, veggieguy and i argue all the time (i still consider him a friend and hope he does i as well), but look at the rest of the cast: macks, lovely acorns, rememberusername...fuck it's an all star cast! bah ha ha
> 
> hmnn, hartage. i can usually read a person through their vernacular (written or spoken) as i did it for a career in the service, but you're an interesting one. we should spar one day!
> 
> yeah, usually i'm all for property rights being defended to the death. telecommunications (especially amplified modulation (AM) as it is HELLA better than FM when ur on a train) is one of the sacred cows of mine. after reading the articles, though, i'm not so sure i side w/the radio giants here. let's get the trivia out of the way, though, shall we? society requires law and order...this includes anarchy. go no further than what does an anarchist collective do if a woman w/child is brutally raped and murdered? there, see? penalty assessed, law and order, blah blah.
> 
> so, in this case it would appear that first the radio towers are an eye sore. the science behind the arguements are rather flimsy so i won't call it a public health issue. the community, by and large wanted them gone, the radio stations could've updated them with new towers or mod transmitters and didn't and the commissioners remained complicent. so ELF, always the media hungry adolescent, ran to the rescue.
> 
> now, had someone in the community done the dirt, i'd back it %100. if the ELF person is from there, fine. and once again, i support the community's right to self determination even if their goverment refuses to act (hell that's how the US came into existence).
> 
> i don't support ELF. never had much respect for them for a lot of unimportant reasons. if you're gonna fight a war don't be opportunistic about it. see, that's kinda intersting that the whole navajo thing came up. now we and this means each and every one of you reading this in the US, fought a war for this country against the indian nations [insert whatever pc term needed as i don't know of any] and won. _victori spolia._ that nice chair and terminal ur using is compliments of men and women like me who put our ass on the lines. yet the theme seems to be that it was unjust. upon examination of the ELF war, though, it's just? let me clairify that this is about the towers and not the navajo, ELF or who-the-fuck ever. just a footnote there as i couldn't resist! lol
> 
> i think, though, that toppling the towers gave some pretty good instant gratification (refer here to the DSM Vol. VI i think is the latest). see the problems w/instant gratification is that it only lasts a minute. i sure hope NO one is ignorant enough to believe that the radio station will not simply use the insurance money which ELF helps pay as they pay taxes when they buy fuel, beer, etc. to build newer, BIGGER ones!
> 
> sadly, it's loose-loose. it's a price that's paid if you have/like a cell phone, StP forum as u use a computer or telecommunications. and it's not going to change. look, the gov't tracks these folks down. i PROMISE you that ECHELON and DSM1000 (CARNIVORE/OMIVORE/DRAGONWARE SUITE) is monitoring this thread through packet sniffing. that's not to say that dissent is illegal, but when you decide to topple bullshit like AM radio towers, it's not the wisest allocation of manpower.



We agree on actually all the points. But you are missing a key piece of info that will tie my actions together and a lightbulb will go off in your head.

The elf burned down an 1,800 unit complex here in San Diego. There were people in it (not many but still) that barely got out in time. I have a friend that lived a couple of blocks away in another complex. What if the elf burned the complex my friend was in instead ? Hundreds would have died as it was done at night when people are asleep. There are people here that are still afraid that while they sleep at night the elf will set fire to their homes and kill them.

My vernacular eh ? Is it my horrible grammar ? My misspelling ? What is it about my vernacular that is particularly interesting ? I'd love to hear what you are able to glean about me from the words I choose. Interesting line of work you must have been in.

I enjoy discussing things with the "other" side to whatever my personal stance is. Most of the time it's eye opening and I learn something I would not have otherwise learned. I'm sure we'll be in a discussion on some thread here. I bet you have some interesting things to share.


----------



## dirtyfacedan

Don't feed the troll folks.


----------



## bote

I think knocking over radio towers is pretty radical.


----------



## bote

hartage said:


> ...the elf burned the complex my friend was in... There are people here that are still afraid that the elf will set fire to their homes and kill them.




There's no reasoning with him either, all the elf cares about is Runic manuscripts and other articles of Elven interest. There are many logics.


----------



## wokofshame

dirtyfacedan said:


> ]
> 
> 
> NEAR SNOHOMISH, Wash. – .
> 
> "What they used was a machine called an excavator. It has a front arm off the front end of the machine. They stole it out of the yard," Andy Skotdal, president and general manager of KRKO. "They went and attached it to the tower and pushed one of them over and pulled the other one down."
> 
> QUOTE]
> damn, if you are stupid enough not to know what an excavator is you have been listening to far too much AM radio


----------



## IBRRHOBO

hartage: sentence structure is what i look at. doesn't mean a thing either. nothing to do with grammar, etc. no iq inuendo either.

dirtyface: don't know who/what the troll folk are so must've went over my head. i never try to share my food anywayz 

murt: i LOVE AM radio for coast-to-coast radio; the old art bell series. they also have the old radio shows before tv replayed on AM out here. i suppose living in a city might justify the need/desire for FM radio, but in the mountains out here (any mountains really) you get zero reception. amazing how, after all these years, i now realize my stupidity is from AM radio................


----------



## veggieguy12

Found these for the back-and-forth on salmon, fish, and oceans between *macks* and *hartage*. "Enjoy"...

1. King Salmon vanishing, Alaska smokehouses empty

2. Alaskan King Salmon population disappears

3. Lamprey on the brink

4. Millions of missing fish signal crisis on the Fraser River


----------

