Oil Spill Sightings ? (Re-Visited)

[jkleins]

You seem to want it both ways. You say you don't deny the damage the oil is causing but then in one post you say the real damage has been by the media. You say we are just armchair observers and you have not seen the oil and don't comment when we posted pictures of oil all over the beaches and quote comments from folks in LA like:

"I think we're going to see oil out in the Gulf of Mexico, roaming around, taking shots at us, for the next year, maybe two," Billy Nungesser, president of Louisiana's oil-stained Plaquemines Parish, said Monday. "If you told me today no more oil was coming ashore, we've still got a massive cleanup ahead."

I don't want to argue that some may have thought this was worse then it may turn out to be just like I think you think it is much better then it will turn out to be, but I have been following this pretty closely and I really haven't seen anyone seriously talking about "the entire gulf dying" or anything like that in the media. Most of the media is concentrated in LA, MS and AL with some in FL where oil has washed up and we hear both sides of the story. The hardship related to the damage that not coming to the beach is having as well as the fact that you can't get on some beaches because of the oil.

I am really sorry you haven't seen as much oil as you want to but it doesn't take much of a search to find pictures a'plenty of oily beaches and marshes all over the gulf coast so maybe you can just look at them to get your evidence instead of telling those of us who can see them that they just don't exist.

You really just can't say that yes the oil is really doing damage and then turn around as say that the media telling people that the oil is doing damage is doing the damage. It just defies logic. Sorry.

Jim

[ude123]

Originally Posted by dmcnsm

" remember ,BP is paying all the fisherman "
Your kidding right ? I personally know of over a hundred locally still not working. They are on the "list" waiting to be called.
$ 2500 -$5000 is what some of these boats made a day ,which is around what BP's compensation has been .
[I know what they make ,I used to own/run a charter boat on the gulf.]

If you have not seen any oil in the gulf or on the beaches around here, it's because you have not been here.
Our barrier islands and beaches are getting covered up with oil and cleaned on a daily basis.
Including dozens and dozens of dolphin and sea turtle carcasses .

A good friend and long time [25 yrs] charter boat owner, put a 38 special in his mouth over what HE had seen in the gulf ,while working on the clean-up .
HYPE ? ....

I am sorry for your loss. That is terrible. I don't know what someone would have seen out there that would drive them to that. I'm not sure(nor is anybody else) that that is the sole reason he did that, it seems like there must have been other underlying reasons as if someone does this solely based on what they have seen out there then maybe it was a mental stability issue and the stress of the spill triggered his actions. How come there are no videos or pictures of dozens and dozens of dolphin and sea turtle carcasses? I don't doubt what you say it's just that I have not seen nor heard about dozens and dozens of dolphins and sea turtle carcasses on the beaches. It seems like that would be prime video for the media. I also haven't seen any news reports of fisherman that are on a list and not getting paid by BP so if that's happening there those guys should contact the media because they obviously don't know about it either. Can the beaches actually get covered on a daily basis and cleaned on a daily basis. The word 'covered' has really gotten me here. I haven't seen ANY pics or vids of beaches 'covered' in oil. If you look at the Exxon Valdez pictures I believe that would be described accurately as 'covered'.

[dmcnsm]

You truly are ,absolutely CLUELESS aren't you ?
I have nothing more for you .
Not getting angry or wasting my time with you on this .
But ,you are, hopelessly clueless .

p.s. what lake are you on in Texas ?

[ude123]

Originally Posted by jkleins

You seem to want it both ways. You say you don't deny the damage the oil is causing but then in one post you say the real damage has been by the media. You say we are just armchair observers and you have not seen the oil and don't comment when we posted pictures of oil all over the beaches and quote comments from folks in LA like:

"I think we're going to see oil out in the Gulf of Mexico, roaming around, taking shots at us, for the next year, maybe two," Billy Nungesser, president of Louisiana's oil-stained Plaquemines Parish, said Monday. "If you told me today no more oil was coming ashore, we've still got a massive cleanup ahead."

I don't want to argue that some may have thought this was worse then it may turn out to be just like I think you think it is much better then it will turn out to be, but I have been following this pretty closely and I really haven't seen anyone seriously talking about "the entire gulf dying" or anything like that in the media. Most of the media is concentrated in LA, MS and AL with some in FL where oil has washed up and we hear both sides of the story. The hardship related to the damage that not coming to the beach is having as well as the fact that you can't get on some beaches because of the oil.

I am really sorry you haven't seen as much oil as you want to but it doesn't take much of a search to find pictures a'plenty of oily beaches and marshes all over the gulf coast so maybe you can just look at them to get your evidence instead of telling those of us who can see them that they just don't exist.

You really just can't say that yes the oil is really doing damage and then turn around as say that the media telling people that the oil is doing damage is doing the damage. It just defies logic. Sorry.

Jim

Jim, I think you are confusing the two types of damaged discussed here, one environmental and one economic. It's the economic damage that has mainly been caused by the media and not the spill itself. It's the environmental damage that has been blown out of proportion causing the extreme economical damage to the area. Just think if no one changed their vacation plans and acted as if this wasn't happening then the only ones affected would have been the fisherman and not the entire region. And BP has been compensating those fisherman so the economic damage would have been minimal. It's the unrealistic picture the media has painted that created the economic damage not the oil spill itself. How is the opinion of a parish president a scientific fact??? Remember these parish presidents are also politicians and are always looking for revenue for their parishes and obviously have an agenda besides the oil cleanup. Not to make any kind of political statements here but I think the political environment in LA is well documented. Why since I have a different opinion than you you somehow have turned that into 'I want more oil'? And those pictures are closeups of very small areas. I beleive the spill has affected about 46 miles of shore. That is relatively small area to what the initial estimates of the damage would be. Do people know that we(people living on land) put more oil in the water(due to run off, land spills, etc. ) by over 10 times than all the oil spills

[ude123]

Originally Posted by dmcnsm

You truly are ,absolutely CLUELESS aren't you ?
I have nothing more for you .
Not getting angry or wasting my time with you on this .
But ,you are, hopelessly clueless .

p.s. what lake are you on in Texas ?

Exactly what am I clueless about??? Please educate the clueless since you are so wise and noble. BTW not on a lake I'm in the Gulf

[ude123]

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

Some of you might be interested to see what causes the 'dead zone' in the Gulf. Hey, it's the land based runoff of fertilizers, oil, and various other chemicals from land dwellers. Why isn't there the same uproar over all that damage that is being done by the population? Is it ok that we as a people pollute the waters but if it is an accident in the pursuit of finding oil(and yes making money) then we want to burn the company to the ground. The fertilizer going into the Mississippi is mainly from huge corporations also. It seems highly hypocritical not to go after the companies causing the dead zone also. Remember the oil spill was an accident, the pollutants causing the dead zone are intentional.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by ude123

Exactly what am I clueless about??? Please educate the clueless since you are so wise and noble. BTW not on a lake I'm in the Gulf

Free Advice: Sharing off the cuff speculation about the mental health of the deceased personal friend of someone else will get you this kind of response every time. Let it go.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by ude123

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

Some of you might be interested to see what causes the 'dead zone' in the Gulf. Hey, it's the land based runoff of fertilizers, oil, and various other chemicals from land dwellers. Why isn't there the same uproar over all that damage that is being done by the population? Is it ok that we as a people pollute the waters but if it is an accident in the pursuit of finding oil(and yes making money) then we want to burn the company to the ground. The fertilizer going into the Mississippi is mainly from huge corporations also. It seems highly hypocritical not to go after the companies causing the dead zone also. Remember the oil spill was an accident, the pollutants causing the dead zone are intentional.

I believe I pointed this out earlier in Post #9 after you said the Mississippi River was "tremendously helping in 'cleaning' (diluting) the oil." The dead zone(s) is well known and understood by those who use the Gulf, and it has been reported in the main stream media.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by slomotion

Free Advice: Sharing off the cuff speculation about the mental health of the deceased personal friend of someone else will get you this kind of response every time. Let it go.

And saying that someone killed themselves due solely to seeing the oil spill damage isn't off the cuff speculation about someone's death? It's not reasonable(ie sane) to kill yourself solely due to seeing damage from an oil spill. This kind of speculation(that he killed himself because of the oil spill damage) is using a person's tragedy(and for whatever reason this happened it is a tragedy and I'm in no way trying to diminish his life or death) to dramatize the damage? I don't think someone should make statements that their friend killed himself solely because he saw so much damage he could not take it. No one knows why he did that. Anyone who commits suicide is insane by definition. Maybe the oil spill triggered something but in no way would anybody ever determine that someone killed themselves solely due to seeing the damage because even if they left a note to that effect it would show the instability in the person if this is the reason they give because a stable, rational, reasonable person would not do this for the reason of an oil spill.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by slomotion

I believe I pointed this out earlier in Post #9 after you said the Mississippi River was "tremendously helping in 'cleaning'(diluting) the oil."

Yes you did point that out in Post #9 but neglected to state what caused the dead zone(land dwellers). And yes the Miss is helping the oil cleanup.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by ude123

And saying that someone killed themselves due solely to seeing the oil spill damage isn't off the cuff speculation about someone's death? It's not reasonable(ie sane) to kill yourself solely due to seeing damage from an oil spill. This kind of speculation(that he killed himself because of the oil spill damage) is using a person's tragedy(and for whatever reason this happened it is a tragedy and I'm in no way trying to diminish his life or death) to dramatize the damage? I don't think someone should make statements that their friend killed himself solely because he saw so much damage he could not take it. No one knows why he did that. Anyone who commits suicide is insane by definition. Maybe the oil spill triggered something but in no way would anybody ever determine that someone killed themselves solely due to seeing the damage because even if they left a note to that effect it would show the instability in the person if this is the reason they give because a stable, rational, reasonable person would not do this for the reason of an oil spill.

And maybe your ego would have survived just as well if you simply let the guy express his grief over losing a personal friend. Sigh. ude123, you really are CLUELESS.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by slomotion

Sigh. ude123, you are CLUELESS.

I think clueless is over dramatizing a friends' death to try and prove a point. It seems like if this guy did kill himself for this reason the media would have picked up on this. People have been known to write fictitious posts on this forum. I think it's pretty clueless to post a fictitious post to try and prove a point. I think it's also pretty clueless for readers to believe an obvious fictitious post about a guy who's friend killed himself because of an oil spill.

[slomotion]

It was well publicized in the media. Next time, try this:

Originally Posted by ude123

I am sorry for your loss. That is terrible.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ude123

Anyone who commits suicide is insane by definition. Maybe the oil spill triggered something but in no way would anybody ever determine that someone killed themselves solely due to seeing the damage because even if they left a note to that effect it would show the instability in the person if this is the reason they give because a stable, rational, reasonable person would not do this for the reason of an oil spill.

For what reason would you think a sane person would kill themself?

Rest in peace "Rookie".
William Allen Kruse left no note.

➥ Oil spill cleanup worker commits suicide

➥ Suicide is called another casualty of BP oil spill - Los Angeles Times

[ude123]

Originally Posted by slomotion

And maybe your ego would have survived just as well if you simply let the guy express his grief over losing a personal friend. Sigh. ude123, you really are CLUELESS.

It's not a question of my ego. How is using a friend's death in this manner merely expressing his grief? He was using his friend's death to prove a point on an internet forum. If he didn't want someone to comment he probably should not have tried to express his grief over losing a personal friend on an internet forum. BTW, my earlier post regarding fictitious posts still apply. I am merely humoring you with my answer to your gullible response.