PDA

View Full Version : Sucks



ragingdave
11-13-2007, 06:00 PM
Someone from the oil companies needs to die (http://origin.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7451668?nclick_check=1)

mountmccabe
11-13-2007, 06:02 PM
I'm not going to register for a news story with inadequate description that wasn't posted in the appropriate thread (http://coachella.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33).

ragingdave
11-13-2007, 06:11 PM
That sucks too.

jackstraw94086
11-13-2007, 06:28 PM
A) They're already working on charges against whomever is responsible.
B) It wasn't an oil company, it was a cargo ship.
C) I can see the bay bridge from my office window. Last Wed it was completely socked in with fog. That's not to say hitting the bridge is OK, it's just that it's within the realm of reason that the radar could have been malfunctioning and it was an honest mistake.

This shit has happened before. Sue everyone for consuming whatever it was on that cargo ship.

theburiedlife
11-13-2007, 06:35 PM
The link you posted asploded and i can't reach it.

Also you should be much more angry at BP due to their refinery explosion in Texas.

http://www.chemsafety.gov/index.cfm?folder=current_investigations&page=info&INV_ID=52

JustSteve
11-13-2007, 07:15 PM
how about british airways for flying empty planes on transatlantic flights, burning 20,000 gallons of fuel and adding about 400 tons of emissions into the air each trip...all to keep their landing spots in the u.k.

canexplain
11-14-2007, 01:43 PM
how about british airways for flying empty planes on transatlantic flights, burning 20,000 gallons of fuel and adding about 400 tons of emissions into the air each trip...all to keep their landing spots in the u.k.

i saw a thing on that yesterday .. what a farce considering we are trying to green the earth and all of that ... canx**

TomAz
11-14-2007, 01:47 PM
how about british airways for flying empty planes on transatlantic flights, burning 20,000 gallons of fuel and adding about 400 tons of emissions into the air each trip...all to keep their landing spots in the u.k.

ummmmmmm.

if the alternative is losing their landing spots and landing spots are a valuable commodity, this would seem to be rational economic behavior on BAs part.

perhaps the fault lies in the rules (I presume the UK government's?) for allocating landing spots.

ragingdave
11-14-2007, 02:15 PM
SUV moms too.

sonofhal
11-14-2007, 02:16 PM
Heathrow is owned by BAA - Can't pin this one on the government, i'm afraid.

jackstraw94086
11-14-2007, 02:21 PM
ummmmmmm.

if the alternative is losing their landing spots and landing spots are a valuable commodity, this would seem to be rational economic behavior on BAs part.

perhaps the fault lies in the rules (I presume the UK government's?) for allocating landing spots.

you're right, but green practice is rarely economical. BA should step up efforts to make more ecological sense of Heathrow's policies.

Don Piano
11-14-2007, 02:25 PM
Also, vampires.

TomAz
11-14-2007, 02:38 PM
Heathrow is owned by BAA - Can't pin this one on the government, i'm afraid.

BAA's a private company? and they allocate slots, not the government?