Forest Proposal Opens Door to More Logging

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Can he supply a link that even 'one' lives in a house that's bigger than average? How about two? Three?

I ask again, why don't we ask Biff what he means by 'often'? Are you against this also CAD?

And you continually bleat the "that wasn't his point" argument. Are speaking for Biff now?

If the newly elected member of the 'yellow' list ever logs back on, we'll just have to ask him why he bothered to make the 'size' claim if he can't back it up. Let me clarify...I'll ask him, I forgot, it doesn't matter to you. If his name was HardWarrior however,....

No, I haven't been "against" anything. I just think it's asinine for you to continue to bleat for "proof" over a subjective and non-quantitative statement like "often" then live in bigger homes.:p

Yes, I'm quite confident in what his argument was, and your little sideshow wasn't it.

Ah, yes, your infantile "yellow" list. Just because often someone doesn't answer your little spun "questions" or play your little subjective "proof" games doesn't make them "yellow". But again that's my subjective POV(opinion).

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Can he supply a link that even 'one' lives in a house that's bigger than average? How about two? Three?

I ask again, why don't we ask Biff what he means by 'often'? Are you against this also CAD?

And you continually bleat the "that wasn't his point" argument. Are speaking for Biff now?

If the newly elected member of the 'yellow' list ever logs back on, we'll just have to ask him why he bothered to make the 'size' claim if he can't back it up. Let me clarify...I'll ask him, I forgot, it doesn't matter to you. If his name was HardWarrior however,....

No, I haven't been "against" anything. I just think it's asinine for you to continue to bleat for "proof" over a subjective and non-quantitative statement like "often" then live in bigger homes.:p

Yes, I'm quite confident in what his argument was, and your little sideshow wasn't it.

Ah, yes, your infantile "yellow" list. Just because often someone doesn't answer your little spun "questions" or play your little subjective "proof" games doesn't make them "yellow". But again that's my subjective POV(opinion).

CkG


If we ask Biff what his definition of 'often' is, it becomes quantitative, no?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
If we ask Biff what his definition of 'often' is, it becomes quantitative, no?

Possibly. However there are bound to be people who don't agree with his definition - thus I'm asking for yours since you seem to want "proof". If you wan't "proof", the person supposed to provide this "proof" needs to know how much "proof" is needed.;)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
If we ask Biff what his definition of 'often' is, it becomes quantitative, no?

Possibly. However there are bound to be people who don't agree with his definition - thus I'm asking for yours since you seem to want "proof". If you wan't "proof", the person supposed to provide this "proof" needs to know how much "proof" is needed.;)

CkG


Actually, as long as Biff can supply proof that X environmental activists live in larger than normal homes, and X meets his definition of 'often', it doesn't matter what my definition of the owrd is. So, again, it all depends on what Biff means by 'often'. Follow me?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
If we ask Biff what his definition of 'often' is, it becomes quantitative, no?

Possibly. However there are bound to be people who don't agree with his definition - thus I'm asking for yours since you seem to want "proof". If you wan't "proof", the person supposed to provide this "proof" needs to know how much "proof" is needed.;)

CkG


Actually, as long as Biff can supply proof that X environmental activists live in larger than normal homes, and X meets his definition of 'often', it doesn't matter what my definition of the owrd is. So, again, it all depends on what Biff means by 'often'. Follow me?

It seems you now understand what I have been saying. It was a subjective statement based on his opinion that you were asking for "proof" of, instead of concentrating on his argument against the "principle" hypocrisy of the anti-logging activists.
But again I'd like to know your definition since you are the one asking for proof - otherwise it'll just turn into a case of "sliding scale" proof where he provides X and you say it isn't good enough, then he provides more and it still isn't good enough. Follow me?;)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Frequently. I could've sworn I told you that already. Please follow along.

But I'm flexible. If Biff holds a different meaning of the word, that's cool. It's not like I'm going to say "nevermind" and leave. Oops, I mean it's not like I'm going to say "I'm wasting my time" and leave. Oops. Well, you know what I mean. I'll listen to whatever he says is his meaning of the word.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I guess I have to take most of the blame for that.

Certain things piss me off...
hypocracy and cowardice are just two of them. :)

As they say at the end of Outer Limits,

"We now return control of this thread to you." ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
I guess I have to take most of the blame for that.

Certain things piss me off...
hypocracy and cowardice are just two of them. :)

As they say at the end of Outer Limits,

"We now return control of this thread to you." ;)

Yeah, hypocrisy and cowardice piss me off too, however blatant ignorance and reading comprehension failures by some piss me off just as much. I mean asking for proof of a subjective statement instead of his argument? Pfffttt I figure most here would be better than that...guess not.

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I happen to think we need some "old growth" lumber anyway. Have you seen the crap they pass off as "lumber" these days? I'd like to see some good lumber on the market for once instead of this garbage they sell us.;)
I see nothing wtong with this proposal, it might infact allow for greater access to remote places incase of wildfires. It could end up saving more trees in the long run.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Isn't it just a tad curious that Biff has been logged in tonight but hasn't bothered to comment?

No worries though, I'll just PM him to come here and clarify. How's that CAD? OK?
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Man, look at this unholy mess of a thread. Maybe I'm the mad bomber, not Nader :D
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Isn't it just a tad curious that Biff has been logged in tonight but hasn't bothered to comment?

No worries though, I'll just PM him to come here and clarify. How's that CAD? OK?

Maybe he's trying to wade through your BS before responding;)
Sure, do whatever will help you sleep tonight.

CkG
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,933
567
126
often Pronunciation Key (ôfn, fn, ôftn, f-)

- Many times; frequently.
You know of any thatched dung and recycled wood pulp huts costing $1.6 million?

Wilderness bewilderment

A leading protector of US countryside has been severely tarnished by an astonishing environmental scandal

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday May 29, 2003
The Guardian

The world's wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding-ground of an endangered bird and sold unspoilt land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America's most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3 billion in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US.


Washington Post Special Report: Big "Green"

--------------------------

Nature Conservancy deal opened the door for lavish homes (Washington Post - 5/6/03)

Nature Conservancy's property deals benefit friends (Washington Post - 5/7/03)

$1.6 million home loan among Conservancy president's perks (Washington Post - 5/5/03)

--------------------------

12 Home Loans at Conservancy

By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A08


The Nature Conservancy, which earlier this month issued a statement of regret to Congress for misreporting the terms of an internal loan to its chief executive, has over the past decade extended 11 housing loans to other employees, including five who were not charged interest.

[....]

Chisholm, former head of the Conservancy's Nevada chapter, was named to the organization's senior California post in January 2001. Six months later, the Conservancy extended Chisholm $500,000 toward the purchase of a $925,000 house in Berkeley, according to property records and the Conservancy's IRS tax filing. The interest-free loan enabled Chisholm to buy a California house comparable to his home in Nevada, where property is cheaper, Petterson said.

---------------------------

Sacramento Bee Five-Part Special Report: Environment Inc.

Fat of the land

By Tom Knudson
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April 22, 2001)

As a grass-roots conservationist from Oregon, Jack Shipley looked forward to his visit to Washington, D.C., to promote a community-based forest management plan. But when he stepped into the national headquarters of The Wilderness Society, his excitement turned to unease.

"It was like a giant corporation," Shipley said. "Floor after floor after floor, just like Exxon or AT&T."

In San Francisco, Sierra Club board member Chad Hanson experienced a similar letdown when he showed up for a soiree at one of the city's finest hotels in 1997.

"Here I had just been elected to the largest grass-roots environmental group in the world and I am having martinis in the penthouse of the Westin St. Francis," said Hanson, an environmental activist from Pasadena. "What's wrong with this picture? It was surreal."

Soon, Hanson was calling the Sierra Club by a new name: Club Sierra.

---------------------------

This series of articles -- based on more than 200 interviews, travel across 12 states and northern Mexico, and thousands of state and federal records -- will explore the poverty of plenty that has come to characterize much of the environmental movement. Some of the highlights:

Salaries for environmental leaders have never been higher. In 1999 -- the most recent year for which comparable figures are available -- chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups earned $200,000 and up, and one topped $300,000. In 1997, one group fired its president and awarded him a severance payment of $760,335.

Top 20 Environmental US Groups' CEO Salaries:


1 The Nature Conservancy $210,151
2 Trust for Public Land $157,868
3 Conservation International $203,049
4 World Wildlife Fund $241,638
5 Ducks Unlimited $346,882
6 Natural Resources Defense Council $238,964
7 Conservation Fund $211,048
8 National Wildlife Federation $247,081
9 National Audubon Society $239,670
10 Environmental Defense $262,798
11 Sierra Club $199,577
12 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation $186,369
13 The Wilderness Society $204,591
14 Sierra Club Foundation $100,000
15 National Parks Conservation Association $172,879
16 Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $157,583
17 Defenders of Wildife $201,337
18 Greenpeace Inc. $54,033
19 Save The Redwoods League $165,110
20 Center for Marine Conservation $135,806


The Nature Conservancy Officers and Executives:

William W. Weeks, Senior Advisor (Salary: 195,000)
Darryl Varnado, Managing Director of HR (Salary: 143,846)
Anne Slaughter-Andrew, Director of the Office of the President (Salary: 240,730)
Rebecca Patton, Managing Director of Pacific-Western Division (Salary: 111,538)
Bradford Northrup, Division Director for Mid-Atlantic Division (Salary: 154,498)
Stephanie Meeks, Managing Director of Marketing (Salary: 198,122)
Stephen J. McCormick, President (Salary: 378,366)
Louis G. Low, Director of Efroymson Conservation Program (Salary: 181,066)
Stephen C. Howell, Chief Financial Officer (Salary: 197,631)
Joy Grant, Managing Director of Atlantic Division (Salary: 85,846)
Jean-Louis Ecochard, Chief Information Officer (Salary: 15,385)
Michael Dennis, General Counsel (Salary: 180,127)
Michael Coda, Managing Director of External Affairs (Salary: 169,474)
Douglas A. Barker, Chief Information Officer (Salary: 180,364)
Michael Andrews, Managing Director of Mid-Americas Division (Salary: 162,764)


Natural Resources Defense Council, Officers and Executives:

Greg Wetstone, Director of Programs (Salary: 142,775)
Jack Murray, Director of Development (Salary: 165,888)
Mr. Alan Metrick, Director of Communications (Salary: 142,775)
David Hawkins, Senior Attorney (Salary: 152,616)
Thomas Cochran, Senior Scientist (Salary: 142,944)

----------------------------

Do you know of a single person, have you ever heard of a single person, who makes over $100,000 a year that lives in a hut made from drift wood and thatched grass, instead of upper-middle and upper-class neighborhoods located on land that was once flush with flora and fauna? Ok, your turn.

lmao!
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,933
567
126
The argument suggesting that the only "principled stand" for environmentalists is to completely eschew homes built with timber products is analagous to arguing that those opposed to government taxation and excessive spending should completely stop paying their income taxes.
Uh...no.

More analogous, would be for someone to argue that, in protest of taxation, others ought to stop paying income taxes no matter the consequence but continues to pay his own taxes in fear of the consequences. Even so, neither analogy is all that good.

This is about fundamental hypocrisy and the worst kind of it. Benefitting from those things one purports are "evils", promoting their restriction for others while partaking themselves. Trees and land for me, but none for you, because I'm a Very Special Person, while you are pond scum.

The true essence of fascism.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The argument suggesting that the only "principled stand" for environmentalists is to completely eschew homes built with timber products is analagous to arguing that those opposed to government taxation and excessive spending should completely stop paying their income taxes.
Uh...no.

More analogous, would be for someone to argue that, in protest of taxation, others ought to stop paying income taxes no matter the consequence but continues to pay his own taxes in fear of the consequences. Even so, neither analogy is all that good.

This is about fundamental hypocrisy and the worst kind of it. Benefitting from those things one purports are "evils", promoting their restriction for others while partaking themselves. Trees and land for me, none for thee.
Isn't most of the Lumber logged in the US sold over seas?Let's say that's the case, do you approve Logging Old Growth Forests so the Japanese can have a ready source of building material?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,933
567
126
Isn't most of the Lumber logged in the US sold over seas? Let's say that's the case, do you approve Logging Old Growth Forests so the Japanese can have a ready source of building material?
Provided we're getting something in return from the Japanese that would benefit us, such as lower import tariffs or access to their markets. Hard to say, because you're asking me to speculate unilaterally.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Isn't most of the Lumber logged in the US sold over seas? Let's say that's the case, do you approve Logging Old Growth Forests so the Japanese can have a ready source of building material?
Provided we're getting something in return from the Japanese that would benefit us, such as lower import tariffs or access to their markets. Hard to say, because you're asking me to speculate unilaterally.
Since when did speculating unilaterally become hard for you?;)
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,933
567
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Isn't most of the Lumber logged in the US sold over seas? Let's say that's the case, do you approve Logging Old Growth Forests so the Japanese can have a ready source of building material?
Provided we're getting something in return from the Japanese that would benefit us, such as lower import tariffs or access to their markets. Hard to say, because you're asking me to speculate unilaterally.
Since when did speculating unilaterally become hard for you?;)
Hey now stop that!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
The argument suggesting that the only "principled stand" for environmentalists is to completely eschew homes built with timber products is analagous to arguing that those opposed to government taxation and excessive spending should completely stop paying their income taxes.
Uh...no.

More analogous, would be for someone to argue that, in protest of taxation, others ought to stop paying income taxes no matter the consequence but continues to pay his own taxes in fear of the consequences. Even so, neither analogy is all that good.

This is about fundamental hypocrisy and the worst kind of it. Benefitting from those things one purports are "evils", promoting their restriction for others while partaking themselves. Trees and land for me, but none for you, because I'm a Very Special Person, while you are pond scum.

The true essence of fascism.

Puh-lease. Again, tell me who is advocating a complete ban on timber products? Nice how you completely avoid the question, pump the issue up into some sort of black-or-white hysterical rant against environmentalists.

Secondly, those CEO & Executive Officer pay scales are incredibly low. Want to do a comparison between the environmental group's salary ranges and corporate America's salary ranges for CEOs? I doubt you would.

Here's a little sample of the top 50 2003 CEO compensation levels -- as you can plainly see in the chart, the top CEO is compensated $47,663,953 in 2003, while the poor bastard coming in at #50 only makes $16,534,803.

Damn, I feel sorry for those SOBs. How can they afford to feed their families and send their kids to college?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Ok, let's take 'em one at a time, shall we?

Wilderness bewilderment

A leading protector of US countryside has been severely tarnished by an astonishing environmental scandal

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday May 29, 2003
The Guardian

The world's wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding-ground of an endangered bird and sold unspoilt land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America's most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3 billion in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US.
Since you neglected to bold those two words that begin with an "a", I took the honor of doing it for you. Until you come up with something that says these allegations are true, we'll toss them out of the equation, ok? (though even if they are true, I fail to see how this backs your claim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature Conservancy deal opened the door for lavish homes (Washington Post - 5/6/03)
Could you please show me where in this article it mentions anything that backs your claim. The closest thing I could find is it uses the word "trustee". Is that your 'proof'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature Conservancy's property deals benefit friends (Washington Post - 5/7/03)
Ok, I couldn't find this article. If you feel like it, you can link to it. (though from your title/synopsis it doesn't appear to back your claim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.6 million home loan among Conservancy president's perks (Washington Post - 5/5/03)
Ok, I have to admit, I didn't find this one either. Again, if you feel like it, you can link to it. I'll admit, though, that it appears to cite an example of your claim. (though it is just one person, the president at that)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Home Loans at Conservancy

By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A08


The Nature Conservancy, which earlier this month issued a statement of regret to Congress for misreporting the terms of an internal loan to its chief executive, has over the past decade extended 11 housing loans to other employees, including five who were not charged interest.

[....]

Chisholm, former head of the Conservancy's Nevada chapter, was named to the organization's senior California post in January 2001. Six months later, the Conservancy extended Chisholm $500,000 toward the purchase of a $925,000 house in Berkeley, according to property records and the Conservancy's IRS tax filing. The interest-free loan enabled Chisholm to buy a California house comparable to his home in Nevada, where property is cheaper, Petterson said.
This one I have to give you. It does indeed give support to your claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Bee Five-Part Special Report: Environment Inc.

Fat of the land

By Tom Knudson
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April 22, 2001)

As a grass-roots conservationist from Oregon, Jack Shipley looked forward to his visit to Washington, D.C., to promote a community-based forest management plan. But when he stepped into the national headquarters of The Wilderness Society, his excitement turned to unease.

"It was like a giant corporation," Shipley said. "Floor after floor after floor, just like Exxon or AT&T."

In San Francisco, Sierra Club board member Chad Hanson experienced a similar letdown when he showed up for a soiree at one of the city's finest hotels in 1997.

"Here I had just been elected to the largest grass-roots environmental group in the world and I am having martinis in the penthouse of the Westin St. Francis," said Hanson, an environmental activist from Pasadena. "What's wrong with this picture? It was surreal."

Soon, Hanson was calling the Sierra Club by a new name: Club Sierra.
Excuse me? You're kidding, right Biff? You're really offering this as support for your claim? The HQ is a nice building and eating at fancy restaurants? lmao @ Biff! :laugh:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This series of articles -- based on more than 200 interviews, travel across 12 states and northern Mexico, and thousands of state and federal records -- will explore the poverty of plenty that has come to characterize much of the environmental movement. Some of the highlights:

Salaries for environmental leaders have never been higher. In 1999 -- the most recent year for which comparable figures are available -- chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups earned $200,000 and up, and one topped $300,000. In 1997, one group fired its president and awarded him a severance payment of $760,335.

Top 20 Environmental US Groups' CEO Salaries:

...various CEO salaries...

Again, excuse me? :laugh:
You list people's salaries as support of your claim? :laugh: I'm beginning to think that any disability you may have is between your ears.

Let's see, that's a grand total of 13 proven instances out of 1,000,000 members. If that meets your definition of 'often', so be it. :)

all in all...lmao @ Biff :laugh:

OK, your turn.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Ok, let's take 'em one at a time, shall we?

Wilderness bewilderment

A leading protector of US countryside has been severely tarnished by an astonishing environmental scandal

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday May 29, 2003
The Guardian

The world's wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding-ground of an endangered bird and sold unspoilt land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America's most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3 billion in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US.
Since you neglected to bold those two words that begin with an "a", I took the honor of doing it for you. Until you come up with something that says these allegations are true, we'll toss them out of the equation, ok? (though even if they are true, I fail to see how this backs your claim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature Conservancy deal opened the door for lavish homes (Washington Post - 5/6/03)
Could you please show me where in this article it mentions anything that backs your claim. The closest thing I could find is it uses the word "trustee". Is that your 'proof'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature Conservancy's property deals benefit friends (Washington Post - 5/7/03)
Ok, I couldn't find this article. If you feel like it, you can link to it. (though from your title/synopsis it doesn't appear to back your claim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.6 million home loan among Conservancy president's perks (Washington Post - 5/5/03)
Ok, I have to admit, I didn't find this one either. Again, if you feel like it, you can link to it. I'll admit, though, that it appears to cite an example of your claim. (though it is just one person, the president at that)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Home Loans at Conservancy

By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A08


The Nature Conservancy, which earlier this month issued a statement of regret to Congress for misreporting the terms of an internal loan to its chief executive, has over the past decade extended 11 housing loans to other employees, including five who were not charged interest.

[....]

Chisholm, former head of the Conservancy's Nevada chapter, was named to the organization's senior California post in January 2001. Six months later, the Conservancy extended Chisholm $500,000 toward the purchase of a $925,000 house in Berkeley, according to property records and the Conservancy's IRS tax filing. The interest-free loan enabled Chisholm to buy a California house comparable to his home in Nevada, where property is cheaper, Petterson said.
This one I have to give you. It does indeed give support to your claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Bee Five-Part Special Report: Environment Inc.

Fat of the land

By Tom Knudson
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April 22, 2001)

As a grass-roots conservationist from Oregon, Jack Shipley looked forward to his visit to Washington, D.C., to promote a community-based forest management plan. But when he stepped into the national headquarters of The Wilderness Society, his excitement turned to unease.

"It was like a giant corporation," Shipley said. "Floor after floor after floor, just like Exxon or AT&T."

In San Francisco, Sierra Club board member Chad Hanson experienced a similar letdown when he showed up for a soiree at one of the city's finest hotels in 1997.

"Here I had just been elected to the largest grass-roots environmental group in the world and I am having martinis in the penthouse of the Westin St. Francis," said Hanson, an environmental activist from Pasadena. "What's wrong with this picture? It was surreal."

Soon, Hanson was calling the Sierra Club by a new name: Club Sierra.
Excuse me? You're kidding, right Biff? You're really offering this as support for your claim? The HQ is a nice building and eating at fancy restaurants? lmao @ Biff! :laugh:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This series of articles -- based on more than 200 interviews, travel across 12 states and northern Mexico, and thousands of state and federal records -- will explore the poverty of plenty that has come to characterize much of the environmental movement. Some of the highlights:

Salaries for environmental leaders have never been higher. In 1999 -- the most recent year for which comparable figures are available -- chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups earned $200,000 and up, and one topped $300,000. In 1997, one group fired its president and awarded him a severance payment of $760,335.

Top 20 Environmental US Groups' CEO Salaries:

...various CEO salaries...

Again, excuse me? :laugh:
You list people's salaries as support of your claim? :laugh: I'm beginning to think that any disability you may have is between your ears.

Let's see, that's a grand total of 13 proven instances out of 1,000,000 members. If that meets your definition of 'often', so be it. :)

all in all...lmao @ Biff :laugh:

OK, your turn.

...sliding scale...
nail...head...

LMOA @ gaard...:laugh:

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
You know, all of this bickering over semantics and so forth, ignores the bigger issue. Which is: Either you believe the defense of the environment trumps business interests, or conversely, you believe business interests trump the protection of the environment. It's very clear which way our current administration sees things: Industry > Environment. I think those that place business and industry profit above the beauty and magesty of our nation's wild places are serving a greedy and selfish agenda.

Everyone understands we have a need for natural resources, including timber, yet there are ways to go about fulfilling those needs without completely wrecking our environment. Nobody is calling for a complete ban on timber. That would be ridiculous. Instead, most environmental groups strive to protect old-growth forests and ancient stands of woods. Frankly, it seems that some of the posters in this thread are being purposely obtuse about this ...
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,933
567
126
Puh-lease. Again, tell me who is advocating a complete ban on timber products? Nice how you completely avoid the question, pump the issue up into some sort of black-or-white hysterical rant against environmentalists.
Avoid what question? This is the first I've seen of it. I have not have been looking for your posts, but that is because they are generally moronic, your last being no exception.

I never stated that any environmental groups advocate complete bans on logging, though I have no doubt there are more than just a handful out there (with over well over 4,000 to choose from). Beyond that, this is a strawman argument. It would not require an all-out ban on logging to drive the price of timber products and building materials higher several hundred percent.
Secondly, those CEO & Executive Officer pay scales are incredibly low. Want to do a comparison between the environmental group's salary ranges and corporate America's salary ranges for CEOs? I doubt you would.
It appears, as usual, you have utterly and completely missed the point.

I only listed annual salaries, excluding other compensation. The salaries of environmental group executives and officers is very comparable to the corporate world. But that isn't the point, since only an imbecile would even attempt to compare the two. What corporate America does is irrelevant.

Corporate America doesn't purport to be saving the environment from decadence, overpopulation, consumerism, wasting resources to satisfy markets driven by indulgence, and that evil home building. Environmental groups do. Corporate America is for-profit. Environmental groups are non-profit, supposed 'charitable', tax-exempt organizations.

At least Corporate America tries to persuade us to purchase what its selling, it doesn't try to cram it down our throats through government regulation. Beyond that, attempting to compare them is a diversion from the issue of blatant hypocrisy. In fact, showing that corporate America is only somewhat slightly worse than the extremely profitable industry of environmentalism only bolsters the hypocrisy.