Add an image
Add a link
November 26, 2005 -- 5:47 PM
posted by Jsese
I couldn't say, I ended up working for 11 hours, and sorta crashed when I got home. Maybe next week I'll try to hit it up again.
November 26, 2005 -- 12:40 PM
posted by eric
sorry Jesse, i ended up seeing some okay bands at an all ages hall show
how was Mod?
November 26, 2005 -- 1:57 AM
posted by Par
Beck, Mike Winters shares your sentiment:
I don't think any Flame fan would begrudge me for saying the obvious: without Kiprusoff this Calgary team would have lost bigtime. I hate his guts. I want to blow up his house. Or poison his dog.
Oh, and Sean Avery turtling.
November 25, 2005 -- 10:10 PM
posted by nobody knows my face
SHIT. Mr. Miyagi is DEAD.
that SUCKS. It's ALL YOUR FAULT!!!
November 25, 2005 -- 8:20 PM
posted by Al
Those wells mean job for Al! Not like I want to see people drilling to get resources, but realistically:
Gas Wells = Well heads = Stream-Flo Product = Team 15 = Design Engineer = Albert Yeong = Type S! = Keeping Al sane
So it is a necessary evil! j/k
November 25, 2005 -- 7:50 PM
posted by alison
EnCana Corporation is proposing to drill up to 1275 new shallow sweet gas wells within the Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife Area (NWA) over a three-year period, essentially doubling the existing 1154 gas wells installed over the past 30 years. The NWA was designated to ensure critical habitat protection for species at risk and reverse habitat loss and fragmentation trends by increasing protected habitat outside National Parks.
so, my question is this: how much is too much? (or conversely, how much is acceptable)? I mean, they already have 1154 gas wells there, plus it's a bloody air force base (which means the area is likely used for mock combat and may have live ammo etc in it.) so even without the extra wells, can this area, one of the few remaining large blocks of unaltered Dry Mixed-grass Prairie, actually be all that serviceable as a wildlife habitat? I realise that the NWA will stop existing as such with such terrible habitat loss and fragmentation from the additional wells, but how successful was it to begin with?
I hate Alberta some times. Here we are in this supposedly vast and wild landscape, and instead of it actually being untouched, virtually every square kilometre of our province has been surveyed, drilled or driven over. When they show maps of Canada's remaining intact forest, there is this lovely Alberta-shaped gap in the vegetation. We have literally reached into every last piece of it.
I guess what sickens me the most is that here I get an e-mail action alert like this (above) that purports to save a large block of "unaltered" habitat and it already has 1154 gas wells on it. How on Earth is that unaltered? And if that's what we're using as our base for determining "unaltered," what does the rest of the province look like?
November 25, 2005 -- 7:26 PM
posted by alison
Now, not to defend aspartame, I can't stand the taste of it. It's not a very good sugar substitute. However, that story makes absolutely no sense. How can over-exposure to aspartame make you allergic to anything synthetic? That's like saying you were stung by too many bees and now you're allergic to anything yellow. There's no connection between cause and effect.
totally true, Beck... it's just the story she gave me. I think there's something more to it than she told me, but whatever, if the initial cause happened to be aspartame, so be it... perhaps it was just the straw that broke the camel's back so-to-speak... though your comments did make me laugh. I realise how far-fetched it seems, but there likely is a shred of truth in it somewhere, even though its very nonsensicalness (?) screams out. whatever... in the end, she developed a hypersensitivity to all things synthetic, and likely it was as a result of overexposure to everything (no idea what sort of career she has), and perhaps aspartame helped to push her over the edge... I dunno.
load more posts . . .





