TH> The above sentence doesn't make sence.
MW> You're right, I don't know where that "opposed" came from, but
  > hopefully you were able to deduce the point.
 
I can only guess...
TH> First, who says 'so many people...screwed up streams.' Sure there
  > has been abuses, but who says that representitive of 'so many?' I
  > think you are misrepresenting facts, here.
MW> No, you choose to ignore the facts in favor of your own agenda.
 
First, what do you think *my* 'agenda' is? Or, why is it even an
issue? You imply that you know, so please tell me. Second, what are
these 'facts' you say that I ignore. Surely you have some in mind, so
please tell me what they are so we can have some sort of discussion.
So far, you have stated an opinion without any basis.
TH> As for as this 'overall health of the eco-system' crap. You are
  > saying that we need 'severe regulation' because of a few abuses.
MW> I did not say that. You put words in my mouth, like "few abuses".
I didn't say anything about you saying "few abuses." That was my
positional view. As for as the above, I *quoted* your words. So, I am
wondering just what you are talking about with this denial.
MW> I also did not say that we "need" severe regulation, but that is
  > what was proposed.
Your statement infered your support for such regulation.
MW> The point is that strong regulation was proposed (and then
  > watered down by the rape and pillage agenda of big business)
FYI, this point we can both agree on.
MW> because of many people, not too unlike yourself, that insist on
  > being able to screw up entire ecosystems for their personal gain
  > while using "property rights" as a shield for their greed.
 
You are not being logical. Why would I want to use my property
*rights* to the advantage of 'big business?' What's in it for me,
other than *my* right to use *my* property to *my* advantage. I really
don't care about 'big business.' They care about themselves.
TH> ...the federal government apparently thinks that all property is
  > effectivly theirs....
MW> The federal government should think that property is to be
  > treated with repect (not that it is theirs as you state),
That, too, is none of their business. Their only business is to
prevent me from harming you and vis-versa when ones use of their
property 'harms' another.
Now it is, effectively, us (property owners) vs. the state. Another
way of saying it is, 'crimes against the motherland.'
Hmmm. That's the same phrase the Nazis used.
Now, let's regress a bit here. Remember that this thread began with my
assertion that I have a right to utilize a stream that flows behind my
property. Utilizing energy in this way does not pollute, it does not
flood, it does not harm my neighbor, or others. I suggest we keep our
discussion within the context of this echo, shall we?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------