has anyone seen this website?

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:53 am

To those of you in the Stopburningman community, I ask but one question: If you believe that we are endangering the environment of the Black Rock Desest (and for argument's sake let's just say that you are correct), where then should we hold the festival? It is the desert you are trying to protect, or are your prejudices and narrow-minded opinions that have been molded perhaps by self-serving conservative special interest groups led you to this conclusion? (Opps, sorry, that's two questions.) If you truly want to help, and protect the desert, give us one constructive alternative location for the festival. My conclusion is probably different than yours: I believe you don't give two hoots about the desert, you hate the people the media portrays that attend Burningman, and free-spirits and enlightened artisans do not fit your mold. Well, as a veteran of Burningman, a Republican, and yes, and square peg in a round hole, I think you all can go hike to hell.

The Doc

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:26 pm

respecttheplanet wrote: For the record, we (people that actually care) *do* go up against corporate polluters. Black Rock LLC just happens to be on the list of corporate polluters. After all, it's being run like a corporation now... complete with a Misinformation "mistress," political payoffs, and an "aggressive" legal team.

Do you enjoy being lied to?

Okay dude, I am dying to know what corporate polluters you and your supposed group have gone after. No, not you as part of the subset of "people who actually care", I mean you. And since you know we will be inclined to doubt you, I trust you will include the means for us to verify your record of environmental activism.

Because no, I don't enjoy being lied to.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:30 pm

Could you guys pick ONE thread to discuss this issue? I don't really care which one. I'm sure it would be a lot easier for you and those who wish to discuss this issue with you. Thanks- Chai

PurpleKoosh · Post by **PurpleKoosh** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:34 pm

Chai Guy wrote:Could you guys pick ONE thread to discuss this issue?

Of course not - divide and conquer is how these trolls (or this troll and his sockpuppets) work.

Tiara · Post by **Tiara** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:41 pm

"the non-stop, 24x7 water truck runs to and from BM to the water source"

Cites, please.

Are you claiming that the water trucks run all night?

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:29 pm

To all the stopburningman people, sock puppets, and/or multiple personalities:

The insane number of threads this whole discussion is happening on seems both detrimental to the board and the topic itself, with all the cross-postings, redundant questions, etc. If you are actually concerned about the environmental impact of the event and not just trying to fuck with our community, please pick one thread to carry on the discussion, or start a single new one, and let's proceed from there. Any post aside from saying "Let's go to this thread" will look suspiciously troll-like, I am thinking.

To everyone else on the board, I respectfully ask that you don't post on any more of these threads until a single one is chosen. I'm sorry about the multiple cross postings and if this seems high-handed. I suppose I could have asked the moderators to intervene, but you know...radical self-reliance and all that.

allanon2 · Post by **allanon2** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:10 pm

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... highlight=

KellY wrote:To all the stopburningman people, sock puppets, and/or multiple personalities:

The insane number of threads this whole discussion is happening on seems both detrimental to the board and the topic itself, with all the cross-postings, redundant questions, etc. If you are actually concerned about the environmental impact of the event and not just trying to fuck with our community, please pick one thread to carry on the discussion, or start a single new one, and let's proceed from there. Any post aside from saying "Let's go to this thread" will look suspiciously troll-like, I am thinking.

To everyone else on the board, I respectfully ask that you don't post on any more of these threads until a single one is chosen. I'm sorry about the multiple cross postings and if this seems high-handed. I suppose I could have asked the moderators to intervene, but you know...radical self-reliance and all that.

allanon2 · Post by **allanon2** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:12 pm

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... highlight=

I am the River you saw Ye · Post by **I am the River you saw Ye** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:41 pm

Well, I suppose we all have to have some issue to pump. Cities, do you go door to door 4 greenpeace? Do you feed the homeless in your neighbourhood? Do you not drive and activly support transit? Have you saved howard?(WEM dolphin) Or is this it? Is this your thing? For every sand castle built by a three year old there is a seven year old who wants to kick it over. Do you really think your words will stop BM? It has made me think, to be sure. To be fair, I think that there is an enviromental impact. But, we are using more world oil than is found and it will soon run out. We will not leave our children with the resourses we have inherited. GM crops take over our food markets and our world health is suffering with industrial disease. EVERYTHING has a bleak side. EVERYTHING is turning to shit.
I packed out all my garbage. I packed out other's garbage. I tuned my car B4 I went last year.
I go to BM to 4get that our society is all falling apart. I am trying to recapture what it was to live with hope 4 the future. Nobody ever does 100%. I think that the original concepts of BM runs 89% or better @ making a richer and safer society than the "real" world. Why is the 11% so important to someone grounded in a society only doing 27% of safegarding it's populace? Remember, you can't push a chain, why don't you try pulling 4 awhile?
(sorry so long)

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:48 pm

I dont see why anyone wants to take up the issues of the world problems with burners. Unless one feels that BM can solve the world problems. (which I totally agree BM can.) I think the first thing one should do is not to take it up with BMorg. Take it up with the idiots that voted for and will vote for again BUSH.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:08 am

Oh and voting for Bush the first time does not make you an idiot.
voting for him a second time does.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:37 am

That was the best spoof of the year...

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:07 am

For the benefit of those confused by encrypted URLs, the thread cited above is
ePlaya Forum Index -> Yearround -> General Discussion
-> This is for all threads to goto about www.stopburningman.org

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:31 am

DVD Burner wrote:Oh and voting for Bush the first time does not make you an idiot.
voting for him a second time does.
:twisted:

The same could have been said about Bill Clinton.

Oh yeah, I do believe I heard it said one or two times in 8 years of "do nothing" against enemies, foreign and domestic.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:16 pm

joel the ornery wrote: The same could have been said about Bill Clinton.

Oh yeah, I do believe I heard it said one or two times in 8 years of "do nothing" against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Well well now,
As we have been finally finding out, while some were crying "wag the dog" it turns out there really was a Bin Laden after all huh?

seems there's going to be more to find out yet hummmmm.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:58 pm

DVD Burner wrote: As we have been finally finding out, while some were crying "wag the dog" it turns out there really was a Bin Laden after all huh?

As it turns out he was one of the "anti-Soviet" mujaheddin we were funding back in the Reagan era.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 1:07 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote: As it turns out he was one of the "anti-Soviet" mujaheddin we were funding back in the Reagan era.

Funding and training as we were training the folks in Nicaragua while trading arms in the Iran contra affair.

wait a minute......I shouldn’t say we. wasn’t it the same people in power now that did that? Wait a minute, isn’t some of the same people from the Vietnam War to this day in this administration?

hmmmm.

Wait a minute.....who shot Kennedy?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:07 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
DVD Burner wrote: As we have been finally finding out, while some were crying "wag the dog" it turns out there really was a Bin Laden after all huh?
As it turns out he was one of the "anti-Soviet" mujaheddin we were funding back in the Reagan era.

As I recall from Robert Fisk (who's talked to the "man" a couple times and lived in the middle east for many years) he wasn't trained by the CIA--as many in the Afgan war were--and I don't think he ever got any funding from us either. (With family money he could afford to pick and choose, perhaps. And let's not even get into the way the Saudi regime plays us like a violin.) Which isn't to say that he had no indirect benefits from the States. But there is still much to be said about our short-sightedness in these matters. Like supporting the Taliban for it's effectiveness against opium poppies and not seeing the bigger picture. Or our support of Saddam Hussain as an enemy of Iran. Also, I'd be surprised if none of the muhaddin we did support had gone on to Al Qaida.
Tangled.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:28 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:As I recall from Robert Fisk (who's talked to the "man" a couple times and lived in the middle east for many years) he wasn't trained by the CIA--as many in the Afgan war were--and I don't think he ever got any funding from us either.

For some good facts on the topic have a read: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

What I find especially interesting is the coincidence of heroin abuse in the western hemisphere with the CIA's props for the mujaheddin, and later the rise of cocaine more or less coincident with the CIA's involvement in Central America.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:48 pm

I think it's correct to expect a lot of servicemen (and women) to come back from Iraq with nasty habits.

G.W.B. · Post by **G.W.B.** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:55 pm

well I dont care what anyone says. I still love George W. Bush.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:57 pm

back from Iraq with nasty habits

you mean like chronic depresssion, suicidal tendencies, high rates of cancer?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:04 pm

8 years of "do nothing" against enemies, foreign and domestic.

I believe the Clark testimony has shown this to be a rather innacurate take. It also shows horrible ignorance of history. Not that I was a big fan of the policy, but the number of bombing sorties flown against Iraqi targets during those 8 'do nothing' years was in the hundreds.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:04 pm

stuart wrote:
back from Iraq with nasty habits
you mean like chronic depresssion, suicidal tendencies, high rates of cancer?

All for a few guys greedy profits. amazing.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:10 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:I think it's correct to expect a lot of servicemen (and women) to come back from Iraq with nasty habits.

I'm not sure if you're reading into what I said or directing your own take on it. For what it's worth, I believe it's much worse than nasty habits coming back with servicemen and women who had to deal with the brutality of war; I would venture to say that the CIA gave carte blanche to drug dealers in those parts of the world, allowing them to poison our societies in exchange for assistance in achieving the CIA's military goals.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:14 pm

I think you're right about the CIA and drugs. They don't know how to say "no." I think combatents come back from war with all sort of habits. In this case, the geography, ect., favor heroin as a chemical one.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:15 pm

Alpha wrote: I'm not sure if you're reading into what I said or directing your own take on it. For what it's worth, I believe it's much worse than nasty habits coming back with servicemen and women who had to deal with the brutality of war; I would venture to say that the CIA gave carte blanche to drug dealers in those parts of the world, allowing them to poison our societies in exchange for assistance in achieving the CIA's military goals.

And who was in charge, both of the CIA at the time and during the wars commissioned of those times?

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:33 pm

DVD Burner wrote:And who was in charge, both of the CIA at the time and during the wars commissioned of those times?

Well, you have to be careful with that one. President Reagan got us involved with Nicaragua, but President Carter started our military involvement with Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:35 pm

Alpha wrote: Well, you have to be careful with that one. President Reagan got us involved with Nicaragua, but President Carter started our military involvement with Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union.

That's right. with who in charge of the CIA?

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:53 pm

DVD Burner wrote:That's right. with who in charge of the CIA?

I believe George Bush, Sr was in charge in 1978, however the article I quoted above puts the blame for our involvement in Afghanistan mostly on Zbignew Brzezinski. William Casey was DCI during Nicaragua / Iran-Contra.

I'm no Bush apologist but I'm not sure we can just lay this at that despicable family's feet.

has anyone seen this website?

lets go here http://eplaya.burningman.com/viewtopic.php?t=27

lets go here