|
MageMage posted:A gofundme was started asking for $5,000 which exceeded $1 million: Reading that reddit thread I found a link to a court document that says the ACE tried to contact the tribal leaders multiple times for consultations. Other tribes talked to them, Standing Rock mostly didn't. If that's true, holy gently caress their tribal leadership is terminally retarded and may have screwed over everyone else on the rez. Check out pages 15-33 for the whole shitshow. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39 DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Nov 2, 2016 |
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Got it, an energy sector with a very excellent safety record is completely comparable to one that is notorious for loving everything up and then leaving the citizens to foot the bill. Are you serious? If nuclear was as common as coal, you'd be able to point to a larger list of failures and lay it out in an impressive looking post even though on the whole they're far safer. Freaking out over pipelines destroying the environment is the same as people blowing Three Mile Island out of proportion or condemning fracking when the alternative is burning more coal. There is no free lunch here, period. Until we find a renewable resource with a) the energy density of oil and that b) doesn't require a net negative investment of energy to extract, oil is here to stay. Hopefully technology evolves sufficiently before we run out of it. If you've got an alternative to it right now by all means step up and receive your Nobel prize. silence_kit posted:Certainly that's true for their leadership. The other members of the tribe may not have known that their leaders could have done something about the pipeline and instead twiddled their thumbs. The dismissal definitely changes the impact of this news story though. Yeah, this. I'm not without sympathy for the rank and file but I really don't know what the gently caress their leadership was thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In no way did I imply desposing of petroleum right now, but let's not pretend that the oil industry is innocent in these issues at large. I wasn't just addressing that, I was also telling you that the plural of anecdote is not data and that throwing up some cherry-picked examples of pipelines gone wrong doesn't usefully tell anyone whether they're more or less dangerous than alternatives or what percentage of pipelines fail catastrophically over their lifespan. In other words, exactly what anti-nuclear types do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Not participating in those surveys was a mistake. It's unreasonable and dumb to punish that mistake by destroying artifacts, especially considering past interactions between tribal governments like the Standing Rock and the government (genocide). They've earned a little slack, c'mon Well the bad news is that by not participating in the survey process, Standing Rock's leadership has probably allowed the vast majority of any potential damage to already occur since like 97% of the pipeline is constructed so uhhhh I certainly hope that the average Standing Rock-er is calling for their heads in addition to everything else. Naw naw dude, you are the one who doesn't get it. Only 1% of U.S. power grid generation comes from petrofuels. Whether or not you run the A/C when you're gone doesn't make a difference to oil consumption. I brought up energy density before and that's for a reason-- energy density matters when power to weight ratios really matter. That's not houses or power plants. That's planes, cars, and ships. Unless you've got a plan to come up with an equally powerful alternative that can allow us to operate all those things on clean renewable electricity, petroleum it is! Technology will progress and we'll get there someday but we're not there yet. Sorry brah. CommieGIR posted:Prove me wrong then. Show me why they should have no say in a gigantic gently caress off pipe of oil crossing their only water source, and demonstrate that these companies do not have a legacy of being utter fuckups and scumbags to people in general. Come up with some solid percentages on how often pipelines fail already. What level of failures do we see and what level would be acceptable to you?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Sure, but changing the Standing Rock leadership is a long-term solution to a short-term problem. The short-term problem has already turned into long-term damage. Any sacred sites that the Standing Rock leadership could've identified but didn't are already hosed because construction already happened. The only thing left is the water crossing. Read the court document I posted earlier. The Corps spent 2 years trying to get together with them and got blown off almost completely. Maybe they didn't trust the white man but considering that of the six reservations the Corps tried to contact, five cooperated fully and aren't the ones protesting, clearly SR took the losing strategy. CommieGIR posted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you'd prefer trains as the best solution to transporting oil?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics For like the third or fourth time I will point out that almost all the construction on the pipeline is already done except for the river crossing. Any sacred sites the Standing Rock leadership could've pointed out in the 2+ years the Corps tried to get ahold of them are sites that are already hosed because they've already been graded, bulldozed, etc. coyo7e posted:At the very beginning, before it ever even gets to your precious 1% figure, we have this caveat: "About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum)." So it's cool because only 1% percent of power on the grid is literally provided by burning petrofuels, so gently caress it we need to pump more oil to provide more power to the commercial sector instead of providing them with a reason to not waste so much energy. Considering that this is a discussion about oil pipelines yeah sure that 1% figure is the relevant part. If you want to drag coal into it, I absolutely agree with should be running like 90% or more of our power grid on nuclear power ASAP. quote:Cars don't exist. Gotcha. Way to dodge the point by sperging on a tangent. What the gently caress are you even talking about? I explicitly mentioned things like cars and planes as being the primary consumers of petrofuels that aren't going away any time soon. There is no alternative to oil for these applications until someone comes up with a something else that has a similar energy density.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Gosh, I wonder why the people of Bismarck get to have a say in protecting water resources near their city while the Native Americans don't. HMMM. Actually meeting with the Corps probably didn't hurt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now That's a great point. Let's put that attitude into risk/reward terms to see what we get. Work with the Corps for 2 years ---> Your sites maybe get hosed Don't work with the Corps for 2 years ---> Your sites definitely get hosed Either way it's too late except for specific objections to the water crossing. The rest of the pipeline in the reservation's area is already constructed on private property. Any sacred sites SR could've pointed out have already been hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Dorothy, one of the Oglala Elders (and a descendant of Fire Lightning), has spoken of Nixon's 'Breadbasket of the World', which opened up Uranium mining on her rez. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
I'm skeptical about this "we just have to delay the pipe until year's end" theory. Sure it'd hurt if Energy Partners couldn't ship oil at the intended prices, but surely operating the pipeline at all would offset costs better than just letting billions in construction costs sit unused?wateroverfire posted:What is all that debris up by the police line? Looks like two piles of it. My understanding is that after a few protestors burned construction equipment back in October the bridge was blocked using concrete barricades and burned out vehicles (I don't know if they were burned by the protestors) to prevent that from happening again. The protestors decided to take it upon themselves to used a semi to drag the obstructions away from the bridge. Since it was the most direct route from the protest camp to the construction site, the police were having none of that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
quote:the police had some burned out military vehicles blocking access Dare I even ask how they got burned out in the first place?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
If you take a look at photos of people who've been injured by flashbangs, like that kid in the crib a while back, flashbangs leave burn wounds. Potentially very severe ones. They don't blast open your arm down to the bone. Something else caused that and whether the cops were throwing lethal grenades or the girl had an explosive device, someone made a really bad decision.coyo7e posted:I've heard zero information about police or military or emergency response vehicles being messed with however it does seem as though more than that one truck owned by the DAPL companies like the one the crazy pool-wading dude with the AR (which was definitely lit on fire after that, to my knowledge, and I think a few more were within the next few days) drove, got torched. I only noticed this though because I was specifically searching to see if there'd been any sabotage of the big expensive construction equipment past having someone chain themselves to it - and there's almost nothing to indicate property damage outside of a few pickup trucks which seem to've gone up in smoke immediately after that guy with the AR went on his mini rampage. According to an article I read on Truth-Out (I know, I know) protestors did burn those vehicles to block the bridge back in October to prevent police access to their camps. Now they're complaining that it's forcing emergency services to divert around the most direct path and the cops are saying the bridge is closed (amongst other reasons) because it may be structurally unsafe due to damage sustained. Good loving job planning ahead and totally not shooting yourselves in the foot, guys.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
botany posted:According to the protestors, grenade pieces have been removed from her arm during surgery and are being saved for legal proceedings. That should be interesting then. But TBH unless I see proof otherwise I'm leaning towards the malfunctioning IED explanation. Professionally-manufactured lethal grenades have a pretty repeatable blast radius so she'd have to have been simultaneously standing away from others and also far enough away from ground zero to only be injured instead of outright killed along with other people. MattD1zzl3 posted:What are the legalities behind using flashbangs and hoses on a crowd? Do they actually have a case? If so, What is the legal way to solve "Hey leave our construction site" "Uhh no i wont".? It's more a question of proportionality and good judgment here than legality. Hoses are legally OK AFAIK but most everyone avoids use of it due to their image from civil rights marches. The cops are claiming that they used the hoses primarily to put out fires. Flashbangs, tasers, CS, batons, rubber bullets, etc etc are also OK as they are less-lethal devices. If you're trespassing or starting fires on someone else's property (and there is no exception for wanting to stay warm or make tea) you're gonna get a response.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:That certainly is a conclusion, but I have to say you're wrong. The protestors act only under orders from tribal elders, who have expressly forbid taking offensive violent action against the security contractors. It's not a conclusion, it's a suspicion. I respect the elders for their non-violence but come on, it's not impossible for someone to independently decide to do things their own way. Tias posted:the screws fired concussion grenades at them, which can and did explode. Just shut the gently caress up. If the police used flashbangs then no, they do not have the ability to create that kind of wound. Flashbangs use a magnesium mix to achieve their effect and it can cause (potentially very serious) burn wounds. That woman's arm is a blast wound.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Just go on the wiki page for a handy list of examples of people receiving blast injuries from flash bangs Get ready for pain.jpg! Flashbang contact injury, third degree burns:  Second degree burn:  Now compare to SR woman: http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/sophi...rm-bomb-photos/ XMNN posted:in which we pretend that setting off a charge containing ammonium perchlorate to create a bang in fact creates no sort of overpressure whatsoever on the basis of ??? It's true that flashbangs *can* pulverise fingers and require amputation of the hand in severe cases. There's been plenty of dumbass cops who've pulled the pin, let the spoon go, and then held it for too long. They have very short fuses. But you lose your hand in the hospital because it's been burnt to a crisp and then they cut it off, not because the flashbang blew it off outright. As for what they do in contact to thicker body structures such as limbs, you're looking at it. But hey, if you've got a confirmed picture of some's arm hanging loosely off the bone like that woman as the documented result of a flashbang I'd be very interested in seeing it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:There were several vehicles burned, as barricades, when the War Camp was descending upon the Sacred Ground camp to evict us for 'tresspassing.' I assume War Camp are the cops? As for trespassing, I've never been clear on this. Are your camps on tribal land and the pipeline is across the river?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
You guys realize that unless you want to count out all less-lethal options, CS isn't usefully distinguishable right? Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. The CWC bans CS use against uniformed militaries (but not for use by soldiers or cops against civilians) specifically because in the fog of war it may be mistaken for the deployment of lethal nerve gas, thus inviting an escalated response. I doubt the protestors have some VX sitting around waiting to be used if they mistake CS for something deadly so that danger doesn't exist here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Honestly though none of this is going to matter in a month or two. Construction is going ahead on the water crossing. The time to stop it would've been back in 2005 by ruling better in Kelo v. New London before Energy Partners eminent domained ~500 lots of land for this project. But since the liberal justices on the court almost unanimously decided that the government must know best, we got the ruling that we got. That, and the reservation's leadership actually returning the Corps calls more than once in a blue moon for two years. It's over and it's been over for a while now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians DeusExMachinima posted:Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
OK, so it sounds like you're not opposed to less-lethal force as a principle. I'm asking why, if you're in a situation where that level of force is justifiable in the first place, should less-lethal chemical be considered immoral compared less-lethal electricity/blunt force/LRAD.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Alright that's a little more understandable than "ALL GAS IS A WAR CRIME" and I agree that some of the poo poo cops have done, particularly with rubber bullets, is over the line and is part of a larger (bad) trend. But short of deciding all property is theft and going full communism now, there's no getting around the fact that the protestors will, given the chance, try to peaceably interfere with construction by sitting on equipment, etc. and a minority will actively try to damage poo poo. You can and should try to talk them down but if they eventually decide the answer is "no" and they're going to do what they've gotta do, there's going to be conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire.Avenging_Mikon posted:Show me a documented source with video or pictorial evidence that isn't "police say." I'll wait. Are we forgetting that the vehicles the water protectors tried to move were burned by some of their number?* It's pretty weird to see pro-cop pieces can't rush to mention that fact fast enough, and I almost never see the origin of these burnt vehicles mentioned in anti-pipeline articles. Confirmation bias in action I guess. *This should not be taken as an endorsement for the cops punishing everybody for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by not using violence. If you're talking about letting people wear themselves out against a riot shield line instead of shooting journalists with baton rounds, yeah that'd be much better. If you mean "letting the protestors stop construction and/or some of them damage more equipment" then lolno.Recoome posted:Why are you so quick to defend the brutal and disproportionate police actions? You've got to troll a little more subtly than this. Even the CS = VX routine was more believable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
botany posted:Why do you prioritize continuing construction over not hurting protestors? Because I don't think trespassing should be legal. The police should use the minimal amount of force necessary to remove protestors. Eventually, someone, somewhere will get hurt in that process no matter how cool-headed and civil the cops might be. They accepted that possibility when they walked onto someone else's property against the owner's express wishes. Anyone who destroys someone else's property should be taken to court and have their wages garnished/assets confiscated until the (possibly multimillion dollar) machine they damaged is covered.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:What's your opinion on Blair Mountain? Considering the Baldwin-Felts PMC's actions in the Matewan Massacre, the fuzz started that one. e: yessssssss finally no more heavy metal av ty
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
botany posted:Trespassing isn't legal. That's not up for discussion. The question is why, if faced with a group of protestors, you prefer continued construction to not hurting protestors. It seems to me like you think getting a pipeline done is more important than human health and safety, and I'm wondering why that is. IMHO you should avoid hurting the protestors as much as possible, short of not moving to evict them per the owner's wishes. Or in this case, you stop them from interfering with as little force as is necessary (not that the ND cops have been abiding by that principle). The impression you should be getting is that, assuming a competent police force, how hurt you get trespassing is up to you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
botany posted:As a follow-up question for DeusExMachinima, when the Bundy militia occupied the Malheur compound, did you advocate that the authorities go in with force? If so, why? If not, why not? Ideally the police should have gone in peacefully, read them their rights, and arrested them much more quickly than how it went down. If they tried to shoot the officers, well... coyo7e posted:Considering that the employees were no longer welcome when they started striking, weren't they trespassing? I agree that ultimately the police had a duty to evict them for trespassing (how they went about it was totally blood-thirsty though). That situation is a little fuzzier though because the mine's PMC started a gunfight that killed a bunch of people. If DAPL's security officers showed up at the camp tomorrow and started gunning protestors down, that'd certainly be similar. botany posted:You're just restating your position. Why is the "short of" clause in there? Why are the owner's wishes more important than the health and safety of the protestors? Why is any of this precluded by deescalating and creating a dialogue, even if that takes a considerable amount of time which would delay the pipeline? Because the owner's rights remain the same regardless of someone else's illegal actions, and a right delayed is a right denied.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
botany posted:Yet the way they handled the situation led to a peaceful outcome (Tarpman excluded) and the situation still got resolved. The end result was that everyone got arrested and/or shot depending on their actions, so if that's what you mean by "resolved" I'm down with that. quote:The protestors have a right to protest, and human beings in general have a right to health and safety. Why do you think property rights are more important? There is no clash of rights here because you do not have the right to say whatever you want on private property. If you're under my roof and decide to heil Hitler you'll be shown the door and your rights will be 100% untouched.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
RBC posted:DuesExMachina do you know anything about treaty rights and who actually owns this land or are you just going to flutter around the fact that the land ownership is basically the issue here and pretend natives have no rights The pipeline isn't on treaty land. I'm unclear if the camp is or not. Any sacred sites on pipeline land has already been hosed up because the pipeline is like 98% done and the reservation never worked with the ACE to identify sites. The only issue of note is whether or not any environmental hazard to the water has been minimized and the protestors are not the final arbiters of that. KaptainKrunk posted:Ah yes silly protesters, please get your license from the state, stand in the designated protest square, and do not break the law. Now, have a good day while we completely ignore you and your demands. By all means you do what you gotta do. Just be aware of what it is you're potentially getting yourself into beforehand. If you burn someone's (possibly multimillion dollar) equipment and you get caught, you should have to make restitution. However long that takes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:That makes it even dumber. They are standing in the freezing cold being injured in order to.... spontaniously develop a time machine? The Guns of the Sioux
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Recoome posted:but it actually is Stunning argument with deep substance 10/10 I won't argue for one second that "free speech zones" aren't pure poo poo though. The ACE's logic doesn't even make sense, assuming the protestors are camping on public land. The camps aren't in the pipeline's path and if they're moving them because they're concerned about people getting exposed to the winter conditions, why set up a zone outdoors at all? I'd say it sounds like cops are being lazy but for the fact that it'll be even more work to clear the camps because I doubt many will actually leave voluntarily. Unfortunately the free speech zone poo poo has been a thing for quite some time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
RBC posted:Because you make no mention of their issue with the absence of consulting on land outside of the corpse's jurisdiction Oh is this the thing where the reservation, after waiting until the pipeline was almost complete, wanted the Corps to review the entire pipeline, including the like 99% that's on private property and thus that the feds and the Corps has no jurisdiction over?  RBC posted:that they over several years, did respond to the corpse's inquiries, but those responses were simply not what the corpse wanted, and refused to engage with. Point out where the court document that silence_kit posted where this happened, or post another document that shows that the Corps ignored the few sacred sites that the reservation bothered to point out over 2 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Mmm yes there are only two options here: a) either we ask you to make more than a one-liner post or b) native peoples have never experienced anything bad at someone else's hands. Don't bother responding though, just be gone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Shuka posted:I don't understand why people support huge corporations and their gov't lackeys so vehemently. Incredibly, if you don't bother to show up to an adversarial process your concerns don't get heard.  RBC posted:but they did respond, many times and did have issues with how the army corpse was engaging them that are documented. DeusExMachinima posted:Point out where the court document that silence_kit posted where this happened, or post another document that shows that the Corps ignored the few sacred sites that the reservation bothered to point out over 2 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
RBC posted:it's not an adversarial process. the gently caress are you babbling about? In the sense that the company presents their proposed pipeline path and then the other party points out the problems with it. Also: quote:but they did respond, many times and did have issues with how the army corpse was engaging them that are documented. quote:Point out where the court document that silence_kit posted where this happened, or post another document that shows that the Corps ignored the few sacred sites that the reservation bothered to point out over 2 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
RBC posted:The company never consulted with the tribe. They didn't have to. It was the federal government. Are you completely loving retarded? Correct, the company didn't have to, but they did anyway. Anyway the company presents their plan for the water crossing to the ACE, who then consults-or in this case, attempts to consult-with the relevant party. Feel free to post court documents showing the Core looked at all the sacred sites the reservation totally pointed out at them and went "nah."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
From what I'm seeing on Wiki, the tribes voted by a majority to accept the 1868 treaty + border revision after Uncle Sam plied them with (adjusted for inflation) millions of dollars. Some dude named Bozeman illegally built a popular trail that headed out west and went past what is Cannonball today. Tons of settlers started coming through without permission, much to the annoyance of the tribes. The army tried to force them to vacate that part of the land in Bozeman's war but the Sioux kicked their asses pretty badly. That drove the feds to the negotiating table and they essentially told the natives to name their price. The Black Hills clusterfuck came a decade later and is in a completely different part of the rez than the pipeline.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
So just to be clear, does anyone in the thread think the 1868 treaty is invalid as a replacement to the 1851 treaty or not? Laminar posted:The best part is I have lurked for years, and I make one post about my profession and end up with this wicked title. If this doesn't sum up the whole issue in a weird internet microcosm I don't even know Goddam dude that is a wicked sick redtext, why did I have to get a lame one. Didn't even tell me to kill myself smdh
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:I don't know what you're expecting of the companies. It rhymes with "expropriation" my comrade. This thread is pretty interesting in that there's a clash between two factions that operate differently on a very basic level. Or three, if you count old-DND types as being separate from the tribal members who may not necessarily think socialism is the answer, old types as distinguished from nu-DND as a whole post-election Abuela toxxes.  Anyway of the three groups you've got your federalist capitalist law system, then there's the tribes--yearning for past glory days--talking about how if they demand an environmental assessment by the army corps of "all lands the buffalo roamed" then they should get it, and then the "socialism would solve this problem" people.The land the pipeline is being built on isn't Sioux ancestral lands. They're Crow ancestral lands. The Sioux massacred them about a hundred years before the first Fort Laramie treaty and took it. If this pipeline was going through the Black Hills both because that really is their ancestral lands and because of Custer's bullshit war and subsequent gold rush, my feelings on this would be different even if the legal situation remained unchanged. But as-is, the Sioux people's public servants failed them when they failed to interact with the ACE for 2 years. Replace those leaders with competent ones so any affected burial sites can be pointed out next time someone builds something on their own property. But the fabled past of the lands the buffalo roamed belonging collectively to the tribe ain't coming back. Ever. In South we call people hopelessly stuck in the past "Lost Causers." DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. This poo poo is completely loving useless without telling us what percentage of miles of pipeline run these failures represent, and then comparing that rate to trucks, trains, etc etc. So please go ahead and post a source that gives us that information or stop it with the white noise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:52
|
|