Ponderable

Wez said:
I recently posted an article critical of HRC. I can post something outside my partisan lean, can you? I challenged both you and BIZ to do so...so far you both have failed that challenge horribly.
Click to expand...
Liar
 
Lion Eyes said:
If?
If you only had a brain....
Have your Visiting Angel read the article and explain it to you....
Johnson had originally constructed the pond to water cattle. The EPA informed Johnson that the pond, which is connected to Six Mile Creek south of Fort Bridger, was in violation of the Clean Water Act.
Johnson maintained that he had sought and received a permit through the State Engineer’s Office, which confirmed that the stock pond met all of the office’s legal requirements.
Perhaps in Wyoming you can stock fish in a stock pond.
Fact is, he's in compliance, and you're WRONG again....

more info:
“Importantly, under the settlement, the Johnson family’s pond will remain; they won’t pay any fines; they don’t concede any federal jurisdiction to regulate their pond; and the government won’t pursue any further enforcement actions based on the pond’s construction,” the legal team revealed.
“This is a victory for common sense and the environment, and it brings an end to all the uncertainty and fear that the Johnson family faced,” said Jonathan Wood, a staff attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation.
The fight began in 2013 when Johnson, under a legitimate state permit, built the stock pond to provide safer, more reliable access to water for his small herd.
Ray Kagel, a former federal regulator, explained how the pond proved to be a benefit to the environment. It created wetlands, habitat for fish and wildlife, and cleans the water that passes through it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was never wrong -- I said Izzy never found any. I even left a couple of ripe cherries out for him, and he missed them.

The EPA did not say he was in compliance -- they settled without making any statement one way or the other about that. As you have noted, an ironic part of the settlement was construction of a fence that will keep any "stock" away from the pond.

Remember how you were embarrassed by posting a bogus email? Do you realize that much of your current post is verbatim blather from Pacific Legal Foundation? You might want to check out their background.

I don't have any way to know what really happened in the settlement, but I will make a judgement at the risk of being proven wrong -- what was reported in the paper is not the whole story.
 
Wez said:
Lol, one word. I guess I was looking for a little more.... you never fail to be you BIZ.
Click to expand...
Here are more words to describe one word which was used to describe one person.

The original meaning of huckster is a person who sells small articles, either door-to-door or from a stall or small store, like a peddler or hawker. The word was in use circa 1200 (as "huccsteress") and was spelled hukkerye, hukrie, hockerye, huckerstrye or hoxterye at one time or another. The word was still in use in England in the 1840s, when it appeared as a black market occupation. The word is related to the Middle Dutch hokester, hoekster and the Middle Low German höker, but appears earlier than any of these.[1] In the United States, there developed a connotation of trickery – the huckster might trick others into buying cheap imitation products as if they were the real thing.
 
espola said:
I didn't say I was never wrong -- I said Izzy never found any. I even left a couple of ripe cherries out for him, and he missed them.

The EPA did not say he was in compliance -- they settled without making any statement one way or the other about that. As you have noted, an ironic part of the settlement was construction of a fence that will keep any "stock" away from the pond.

Remember how you were embarrassed by posting a bogus email? Do you realize that much of your current post is verbatim blather from Pacific Legal Foundation? You might want to check out their background.

I don't have any way to know what really happened in the settlement, but I will make a judgement at the risk of being proven wrong -- what was reported in the paper is not the whole story.
Click to expand...
You're never wrong.
You're even smarter than Bill Nye the science guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top