"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 10:08 PM 5/5/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >Then I went to one of the web sites you cited as evidence in your lengthy argument
>that the ANWR
> >wasn't a wilderness area* only to discover that, in fact, over 8 million
> acres
> >of it _is_ designated as wilderness. In fact it's the country's largest
> >wilderness area.
>
> But not in any area that is to be developed! - which was the point.
> Liberal activists keep trying to paint this area with the "wilderness"
> label, which is just not appropriate, based on US land use classifications.
Everything I read about the area in question describes it as a pristine
wilderness. I don't think an area requires permission from the U.S. to be a
wilderness. In fact every reference I can find on the subject confirms that
wilderness in one form or the other has existed for at least a week or two
longer than The U.S.
Besides that you went on for three paragraphs or more and cited several
websites with your primary theme being that the ANWR was not a wilderness.
You didn't claim that the coastal plain, or area 1002 as it is also known,
wasn't a wilderness, you said the preserve wasn't. And, in fact, >40% of the
ANWR _is_ officially designated wilderness.
>
> >In any case, it seems that, in fact, you were the one that was wrong on so
> >many counts. Care to redeem yourself by backing up your claim that "there is
> >little evidence that oil exploration elsewhere on the North Slope has
> severely
> >disrupted the wildlife there"?
>
> I don't have time to look up stuff on it, unfortunately.
If you don't have time to check the veracity of your arguments, especially in
a post that you make it a point to tell a person how wrong they are, you ought
to keep that argument to yourself until you do have the time. I don't
appreciate being told I'm wrong by someone who's using the Rush Limbaugh book
of wild rumors to back up his claims.
>
> But, I just have to repost this funny "fact" from the web site that you
> posted:
> "Fact: No matter how well done, oil development will industrialize a
> unique, wild area that is the biological heart of the refuge."
>
> In other words, no matter what anybody else has to say, we're not listening.
That's just a statement of fact, John. If you cover 12,000 acres (not 60,
Interior Department estimate*) of a previously pristine area with oil drilling
infrastructure - roads, airstrips, barracks, platforms etc. spread over
hundreds of miles of the preserve, you have industrialized it. Personally,
I'll take the word of an individual or group of individuals that have little
or nothing material to gain over giant, greedy, power mongering corporations
that have everything to gain anyway.
Doug
*from the same section of the website quoted by JDG:
http://www.alaskawild.org/myths_facts.html#myth6
