Eleven Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 People's well water not only can turn toxic but flammable with gas seeping through their plumbing. Not every environmental issue is about hugging trees. How would you like to be the person trying to sell a house with a toxic,explosive well? PTR Exactly. As has become the new norm in the Murdoch era, the WSJ coverage isn't exactly balanced. I really miss what that paper was. Murdoch is doing one hell of a job of promoting the FT, though, since he's made WSJ nearly unreadable.
bunomatic Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 Latest from Bucky Gleason - Link- http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/article285178.ece Quote-"And he knew darned well knows that several changes are still in order" WTF Bucky , hire an editor.
nfreeman Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 People's well water not only can turn toxic but flammable with gas seeping through their plumbing. Not every environmental issue is about hugging trees. How would you like to be the person trying to sell a house with a toxic,explosive well? PTR I don't think anyone would like to be in that position. I also don't think people end up with toxic, explosive wells any more often than they are hit by lightning. Exactly. As has become the new norm in the Murdoch era, the WSJ coverage isn't exactly balanced. I really miss what that paper was. Murdoch is doing one hell of a job of promoting the FT, though, since he's made WSJ nearly unreadable. IMHO, Murdoch's changes to the WSJ have been cosmetic and have not affected either its journalistic integrity (which is far superior to any other newspaper I have read) or its political views (which many people disagree with). The piece I quoted was an opinion piece. And while I suspect you aren't inclined to trust the WSJ's editorial board's approach to energy development, surely you don't think the NYS government has done a good job promoting private sector job creation, either statewide or in WNY?
billsrcursed Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 People's well water not only can turn toxic but flammable with gas seeping through their plumbing. Not every environmental issue is about hugging trees. How would you like to be the person trying to sell a house with a toxic,explosive well? PTR My entire neighborhood uses wells... I'm not sure if I should laugh you off or call someone. Thanks alot, I think... :blink: :blush:
Taro T Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 The News series didn't mention a lawsuit at all. I just think there's more to this than the typical "Albany lock." There may be real reasons for preventing hydrofracking in our state. Yes, there may. But my guess is that there probably aren't. Or, I should rephrase that and state that while there are likely "real" reasons for not going forward with this, there likely aren't "good" reasons for not going forward. (Or even more specifically yet, the "good" reasons likely don't outweigh the "bad" reasons to not go forward.) People's well water not only can turn toxic but flammable with gas seeping through their plumbing. Not every environmental issue is about hugging trees. How would you like to be the person trying to sell a house with a toxic,explosive well? PTR PTR, might you have both examples of flammable wells caused by horizontal hydrofracking and data on the total # of horizontal hydrofracting wells that don't create these issues? Again, my guess is that it is an extremely small percentage of drinking wells that are messed up due to hydrofracking. And this is strictly annecdotal, but my parents' property on multiple occassions had pooling water that would take on a slight oily sheen. The oily sheen wasn't due to any hydrofracking, it was due to gas & other hydrocarbons being under the ground and occassionally not just finding a way to the surface but also getting there in a noticable manner. We weren't too worried about spontaneous combustion nor were we horribly worried about the contaminants to the water. At least not those contaminants. The friggin' sulphur water in the area made it just about undrinkable w/out a water softener. Exactly. As has become the new norm in the Murdoch era, the WSJ coverage isn't exactly balanced. I really miss what that paper was. Murdoch is doing one hell of a job of promoting the FT, though, since he's made WSJ nearly unreadable. The WSJ has always had an economically conservative bent to it. It also has been more liberal in its PERSONAL and WEEKEND JOURNAL articles (although WEEKEND JOURNAL is more recent and I don't recall if it predated Murdoch or not) than in the back of section A. I can't honestly state that I've seen a significant divergence from its prior standards. Although I will admit that Al Hunt was a superior flag bearer for the liberal point of view than Thomas Frank was. I don't believe that change was due to Murdoch taking over, though. (Aside: have they picked their new house liberal yet? I haven't noticed anyone replacing the "Tilting Yard.") I don't think anyone would like to be in that position. I also don't think people end up with toxic, explosive wells any more often than they are hit by lightning. IMHO, Murdoch's changes to the WSJ have been cosmetic and have not affected either its journalistic integrity (which is far superior to any other newspaper I have read) or its political views (which many people disagree with). The piece I quoted was an opinion piece. And while I suspect you aren't inclined to trust the WSJ's editorial board's approach to energy development, surely you don't think the NYS government has done a good job promoting private sector job creation, either statewide or in WNY? I'd agree w/ that, but I haven't really gotten to read the FT on a regular basis. Most all the top economists that I know have sworn by that one as being better than the WSJ, but that goes back at least a decade and definitely goes back prior to the ownership change.
nfreeman Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 The WSJ has always had an economically conservative bent to it. It also has been more liberal in its PERSONAL and WEEKEND JOURNAL articles (although WEEKEND JOURNAL is more recent and I don't recall if it predated Murdoch or not) than in the back of section A. I can't honestly state that I've seen a significant divergence from its prior standards. Although I will admit that Al Hunt was a superior flag bearer for the liberal point of view than Thomas Frank was. I don't believe that change was due to Murdoch taking over, though. (Aside: have they picked their new house liberal yet? I haven't noticed anyone replacing the "Tilting Yard.") I'd agree w/ that, but I haven't really gotten to read the FT on a regular basis. Most all the top economists that I know have sworn by that one as being better than the WSJ, but that goes back at least a decade and definitely goes back prior to the ownership change. Weekend Journal predated Murdoch. Even so, there are more "lifestyle" features now -- but I don't see these as affecting the WSJ's core journalism or politics. I don't know whether or not Frank was ousted by Murdoch's team, but I'm glad to see him and his vituperativeness hit the road. I don't think he's been replaced yet. The FT is a terrific newspaper, although IMHO nevertheless suffused, with respect to international relations, with the same political "soft" (i.e. not as strident as the NYT or the Guardian) liberalism and anti-Americanism as is the Economist.
Stoner Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 Quote-"And he knew darned well knows that several changes are still in order" WTF Bucky , hire an editor. It was a terrible column. Bucky, who admits to never having spoken to Terry, is now deep, deep inside Terry's head. He knows what Terry is thinking. He called him a "flag-waving" Sabres fan with a "passion for" the team and a "commitment to winning." Bunk.
nfreeman Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 It was a terrible column. Bucky, who admits to never having spoken to Terry, is now deep, deep inside Terry's head. He knows what Terry is thinking. He called him a "flag-waving" Sabres fan with a "passion for" the team and a "commitment to winning." Bunk. You make a very good point here, but still -- do you doubt that the sale is going to happen? I just don't think Bucky would have taken as firm a position as he did without being pretty GD sure. If it doesn't happen, to be sure, Bucky will look pretty amateurish.
Stoner Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 You make a very good point here, but still -- do you doubt that the sale is going to happen? I just don't think Bucky would have taken as firm a position as he did without being pretty GD sure. If it doesn't happen, to be sure, Bucky will look pretty amateurish. I think there's a good chance the Sabres will be sold, but I really don't know what I'm basing that on. We've slid way back from the early reporting about a letter of intent, appearing at the Governors meeting, going to Manhattan to meet Bettman. You can't believe that good reporting is Bucky writing, "From all indications..." the sale is proceeding without any sourcing. Bucky said in his chat that we should basically just trust him. He's not only using anonymous sources, but sources who insist Bucky not even mention that he has a source, let alone a source "within the Sabres organization," "in the league offices," etc. It just doesn't do me any good as a reader and fan. We all like to idealize these things, but I'd bet dollars to tiny little bite size donut holes that "From all indications" is Bucky milling around the pressbox before the game gossiping with folks.
shrader Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I think there's a good chance the Sabres will be sold, but I really don't know what I'm basing that on. We've slid way back from the early reporting about a letter of intent, appearing at the Governors meeting, going to Manhattan to meet Bettman. You can't believe that good reporting is Bucky writing, "From all indications..." the sale is proceeding without any sourcing. Bucky said in his chat that we should basically just trust him. He's not only using anonymous sources, but sources who insist Bucky not even mention that he has a source, let alone a source "within the Sabres organization," "in the league offices," etc. It just doesn't do me any good as a reader and fan. We all like to idealize these things, but I'd bet dollars to tiny little bite size donut holes that "From all indications" is Bucky milling around the pressbox before the game gossiping with folks. I think it's a pretty safe stance for him to take. Pegula hasn't said a word, so there must be some real interest there. If he does end up buying the team, Bucky looks like he knows what he's talking about. If not, he just spins some "something unexpected happened" story. It's win-win.
Eleven Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I don't think anyone would like to be in that position. I also don't think people end up with toxic, explosive wells any more often than they are hit by lightning. IMHO, Murdoch's changes to the WSJ have been cosmetic and have not affected either its journalistic integrity (which is far superior to any other newspaper I have read) or its political views (which many people disagree with). The piece I quoted was an opinion piece. And while I suspect you aren't inclined to trust the WSJ's editorial board's approach to energy development, surely you don't think the NYS government has done a good job promoting private sector job creation, either statewide or in WNY? I do not think the NYS government has done a good job with respect to almost anything in the last twenty years, and certainly not job creation, but I think they are protecting some citizens with this particular ban. I perceive the WSJ as having moved further to the right since the acquisition. Its business articles still are among the best in the business.
Stoner Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I think it's a pretty safe stance for him to take. Pegula hasn't said a word, so there must be some real interest there. If he does end up buying the team, Bucky looks like he knows what he's talking about. If not, he just spins some "something unexpected happened" story. It's win-win. This sounds about right. Sad, but right.
nfreeman Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I think there's a good chance the Sabres will be sold, but I really don't know what I'm basing that on. We've slid way back from the early reporting about a letter of intent, appearing at the Governors meeting, going to Manhattan to meet Bettman. You can't believe that good reporting is Bucky writing, "From all indications..." the sale is proceeding without any sourcing. Bucky said in his chat that we should basically just trust him. He's not only using anonymous sources, but sources who insist Bucky not even mention that he has a source, let alone a source "within the Sabres organization," "in the league offices," etc. It just doesn't do me any good as a reader and fan. We all like to idealize these things, but I'd bet dollars to tiny little bite size donut holes that "From all indications" is Bucky milling around the pressbox before the game gossiping with folks. I think it's a pretty safe stance for him to take. Pegula hasn't said a word, so there must be some real interest there. If he does end up buying the team, Bucky looks like he knows what he's talking about. If not, he just spins some "something unexpected happened" story. It's win-win. I agree that it's frustrating as a reader/fan. We'd like to be privy to the conversations that Bucky has had and make our own judgments. At the end of the day, though, we have to accept that this isn't possible, and decide how much credibility we want to accord to a journalist. There are plenty of them that don't deserve much. I've disagreed with Bucky plenty of times over the years. In particular, I continue to be disappointed by the fact that there are many occasions on which it seems he doesn't have any more information than we do about the inner workings of Sabres' management. However, I also think that he isn't the kind of guy (like Peter Vecsey, for example) who throws a bunch of stuff against the wall to see if some of it will stick. He took a pretty strong, specific position on this (as he did on the Drury debacle -- and it now looks like he was right about that). I interpret his column, along with my reading of his other work, to mean that he has information that is substantial enough to make him comfortable in taking the position -- and thus that it's probably going to happen. We'll see.
shrader Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I bet we get a bit of a surge in these stories a bit if Pegula happens to be anywhere near the arena for tonight's game.
Stoner Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I have this recurring daydream. The Sabres are playing at home. They're down 2-0 in the early going, the second goal eliciting a classic Ryan Miller WTF wave. The crowd is grumbling, but there's also this great vibe in the building in the early minutes. The place is packed despite the team still being on the playoff bubble -- the support for this franchise has been so strong. These people deserve more... Second commercial break, 9:17 to go in the first. And here it is. The music stops. The PA announcer says, "Ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention to the 100 level behind the Sabres bench and welcome to HSBC Arena..."
gregkash Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I have this recurring daydream. The Sabres are playing at home. They're down 2-0 in the early going, the second goal eliciting a classic Ryan Miller WTF wave. The crowd is grumbling, but there's also this great vibe in the building in the early minutes. The place is packed despite the team still being on the playoff bubble -- the support for this franchise has been so strong. These people deserve more... Second commercial break, 9:17 to go in the first. And here it is. The music stops. The PA announcer says, "Ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention to the 100 level behind the Sabres bench and welcome to HSBC Arena..." ... Tony Award Winner Marcia Gay Harden
nfreeman Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 ... Tony Award Winner Marcia Gay Harden outstanding.
Buffalo Wings Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 I agree that it's frustrating as a reader/fan. We'd like to be privy to the conversations that Bucky has had and make our own judgments. At the end of the day, though, we have to accept that this isn't possible, and decide how much credibility we want to accord to a journalist. There are plenty of them that don't deserve much. I've disagreed with Bucky plenty of times over the years. In particular, I continue to be disappointed by the fact that there are many occasions on which it seems he doesn't have any more information than we do about the inner workings of Sabres' management. However, I also think that he isn't the kind of guy (like Peter Vecsey, for example) who throws a bunch of stuff against the wall to see if some of it will stick. He took a pretty strong, specific position on this (as he did on the Drury debacle -- and it now looks like he was right about that). I interpret his column, along with my reading of his other work, to mean that he has information that is substantial enough to make him comfortable in taking the position -- and thus that it's probably going to happen. We'll see. Presuming those conversations are with someone with in-depth knowledge of any potential discussions/negotiations. I've been through this before with my own company - we knew we were bankrupt and going to be bought, but didn't know by who or when. Then...of course...we wondered for months if our jobs were on the line. As much as we wanted to be a fly on the board room wall, we had no clue about anything until it became public. This is a big deal to the fans, yet we have to continue to wait until there's something solid & legit.
shrader Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 Presuming those conversations are with someone with in-depth knowledge of any potential discussions/negotiations. I've been through this before with my own company - we knew we were bankrupt and going to be bought, but didn't know by who or when. Then...of course...we wondered for months if our jobs were on the line. As much as we wanted to be a fly on the board room wall, we had no clue about anything until it became public. This is a big deal to the fans, yet we have to continue to wait until there's something solid & legit. I can't imagine there are any places where $175 million deals happen at the snap of finger... well, outside of DC anyway.
Eleven Posted December 17, 2010 Report Posted December 17, 2010 outstanding. agreed. well done mr. gregkash.
Two or less Posted December 19, 2010 Report Posted December 19, 2010 Pierre LeBrun on Hockey Hotstove tonight during HNIC said the Sabres same is going through. He said it'll be done by end of season.
Eleven Posted December 19, 2010 Report Posted December 19, 2010 Pierre LeBrun on Hockey Hotstove tonight during HNIC said the Sabres same is going through. He said it'll be done by end of season. Will it be done by the trade deadline?
inkman Posted December 19, 2010 Report Posted December 19, 2010 Will it be done by the trade deadline? Which Sabres would other teams want? I can't think of one.
nfreeman Posted December 19, 2010 Report Posted December 19, 2010 Which Sabres would other teams want? I can't think of one. I could see someone taking TC as a rental and possibly even Hecht (although he has another year on his contract). Not Pommer though -- we are stuck with that albatross unless Pegula wants to buy him out.
carpandean Posted December 19, 2010 Report Posted December 19, 2010 Which Sabres would other teams want? I can't think of one. The Sabres aren't the only team that overpays for mediocre players at the deadline.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.