Oil Leak Thread for Ansley

On the other hand.....

I've privately asked some questions of eccie leadership about mods. I've yet to get a response...frustrating.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Let it go, my friend. Settle back, close your eyes and dream of Ansley.

Settle back, close your eyes and dream of Ansley. Originally Posted by John Bull

ATL dream of me?!

Let it go, my friend. Settle back, close your eyes and dream of Ansley. Originally Posted by John Bull

I have too much respect for Ansley to dignify that comment with a response...she has nothing to do with it...

I'm simply waiting for St. Chris or whoever is in charge here to answer my simple question:

"Do you, as an owner/leader/responsible person of eccie.net want to have a woman that flaunts that she lied about her age and basic likes/dislikes and profile back when she was an active provider represent eccie.net as a moderator?"

As leaders of eccie, what standards do you have for moderators?

Do you look for liars?

Or do you just accept them?

I think I raise legitimate questions for discussion. Even if someone has a different point of view, I'd at least like them to have the courage (balls) to share that point of view. (that is admit you support liars)

What is the point of "showcases" if they are nothing but works of fiction?

What "lies" are acceptable?

The courtesy of a response is appreciated....

Since you disagree about blame going to the Coast Guard, I guess it will have to squarely sit on the shoulders of private industry. Don't you agree, PJ? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I have no idea what agency is responsible for containing an oil spil, but they all report to Obama.

Yes, BP is responsible for making the mess and they will pay through the nose for doing so. Probably something north of $5B, which is roughly what Exxon paid for the Exxon Valdez.

But the Federal government is clearly responsible for arranging to contain and clean up an environmental mess like this. And the Feds did sit there with their thumb up their ass for a few days getting their act together. GWB was blistered for less delay and incompetence and his people weren't even supposed to be in charge -- the locals were.

Ansley changed her avatar. I presume that Grumpy represents one of your regular clients, Ansley?

As for the oil spill, 9/11 was a catastrophe. Some shrimp and pelicans dying is not a catastrophe in my book. Plus, oil naturally seeps out of the ocean floor every day. Finally, BP will pay out their frkn noses for this spill, probably ending in an economic surplus to the US as whole.

I have no idea what agency is responsible for containing an oil spil, but they all report to Obama. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Minerals Management Service (MMS) is the federal agency in charge of regulations for off shore and inland waters operations for the Federal Government.

Master of Universe says BP oil spill:

not a catastrophe in my book.

No. Of course not.


Master of Universe also only concerns self with + or - re: economics. MoU says US of A will benefit from spanking oil smear. *lol*

Dispersants will accelerate stock jock growth. Dead zones and tumors extra charge.

Master of Universe says BP oil spill:



No. Of course not.


Master of Universe also only concerns self with + or - re: economics. MoU says US of A will benefit from spanking oil smear. *lol*

Dispersants will accelerate stock jock growth. Dead zones and tumors extra charge.

Originally Posted by ..

Put the pipe down.

I have no idea what agency is responsible for containing an oil spil, but they all report to Obama.

Yes, BP is responsible for making the mess and they will pay through the nose for doing so. Probably something north of $5B, which is roughly what Exxon paid for the Exxon Valdez.

But the Federal government is clearly responsible for arranging to contain and clean up an environmental mess like this. And the Feds did sit there with their thumb up their ass for a few days getting their act together. GWB was blistered for less delay and incompetence and his people weren't even supposed to be in charge -- the locals were. Originally Posted by pjorourke

As far as the amount is concerned, CNN reports that there is a statutory cap on BP's cleanup responsibility. The Exxon was due to lawsuits, which the Supreme Court reduced substantially a number of times. I have no idea if the $5B you cite is the original judgment or the remitted judgment.

I agree about your statement about GWB. State/locals in any response are supposed to be in charge. Although, in the Post-Katrina Act, Congress gave the feds additional authority. I've always thought GWB should have authorized an aggressive PR campaign to rebut every false charge the press reported--similar to [Bill] Clinton's campaign rapid response team.

I've always thought GWB should have authorized an aggressive PR campaign to rebut every false charge the press reported--similar to [Bill] Clinton's campaign rapid response team. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Now that you mention it, odd he didn't; he did authorize a special PR group out of the White House to sell the Iraq war.

I think the ECCIE staff deliberately caused the oil spill as a distraction. They sent a group of street hookers out to the rig to distract the crew while they tampered with the equipment. You know how oil rig workers react around hookers. The rig name is the Deepwater (W)hor(e)izon? Isn't that just too much of a coincidence?

Then go out and look at the handles the mods are using. Think a little bit about the particular handles they've chosen and what they mean. Aren't there some subtle hints in their choices of names?

Also consider that this happened just as the EU is starting to have some big financial problems. What motives could the ECCIE staff have to distract our attention from European economic troubles? Notice that the focus of the economic crisis is in GREECE? Isn't there a big Greek connection with the ECCIE staff?

Stop for a few minutes and think about the oil spill's effect on seafood and what you know about Big C's connection with seafood.

Wake up people. There's more here than meets the eye.

Speaking of blaming it on ECCIE, take a look at this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...highlight=lube

Charlestudor2005, I believe there is no cap on cleanup costs. The $75 million cap is on liability for economic losses of those affected by the spill. That limit is eliminated if negligence is proven.

Let's hope the subsea oil recovery system they are moving into place today will stem the flow. I've seen this technology used successfully after hurricanes, but in shallower water. It has never been tested in the type of pressures seen at 5,000' water depths.

Charlestudor2005, I believe there is no cap on cleanup costs. The $75 million cap is on liability for economic losses of those affected by the spill. That limit is eliminated if negligence is proven.

Let's hope the subsea oil recovery system they are moving into place today will stem the flow. I've seen this technology used successfully after hurricanes, but in shallower water. It has never been tested in the type of pressures seen at 5,000' water depths. Originally Posted by Egrbvr

Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Transocean-BP rig had safety valve problem in UK


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...lem-in-UK.html

Charlestudor2005, I believe there is no cap on cleanup costs. The $75 million cap is on liability for economic losses of those affected by the spill. That limit is eliminated if negligence is proven.

Let's hope the subsea oil recovery system they are moving into place today will stem the flow. I've seen this technology used successfully after hurricanes, but in shallower water. It has never been tested in the type of pressures seen at 5,000' water depths. Originally Posted by Egrbvr

I think it's going to be hard to prove negligence. I've seen the defense of "it was just an accident...nobody's fault" used successfully by defense attorneys. I'm afraid that will be used successfully here.