Comments on: Turtles Are Not This Smart*

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:59:54 +0000

in your case D- or not.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:56:35 +0000

Maybe someday Blake will learn that his insults tell nothing about the person he is insulting, but quite a bit about him.

Or not.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:47:43 +0000

Adam, when I am wrong, I will admit it, but this project is ill timed, because it is not the turtles who need the stimulus, and I am sure that there are other projects that could use the money more. The time to do this project is when we have some extra money. There are streets in Delaware and other places that could use repaving because they are a danger to people.
Its a matter of priorities- lets not skew them. Our focus has to be narrow, because despite Hussein saying different, we do not have the money for everything.
Darrel- I am very concerned about wildlife- but you I don’t give a rat’s ass about.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:48:19 +0000

ADM: “Or maybe I’m wrong.”

DAR
Nope, not wrong.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:57:39 +0000

You’re still ignoring several obvious facts here though in your own ignorant stubbornness.

First of all money has been allotted already, like it or not. Either we spend it on this or we spend it on something else. What would you rather spend it on, because it’s getting spent either way. It’s the stimulus.

Second, this is not a half-assed project. This is a project that has been in the planning stages for many years and is modeled on another hugely successful project from the late 90′s that virtually eliminated roadkill on a stretch of road in Paynes Prairie Florida.

Third, this is not some average stretch of highway where politicians just want to do something to feel good and save some turtles. This is one of the worst spots for roadkill in the nation located right inside an important wetlands area in Florida. The risk to people and animals is real.

Fourth, it’s not hypocrisy to want to fix the worst spots for road kill, period.

I should have known you’d balk at supporting this. To go back and say you support it would be to admit you were wrong to start with.

I may be stubborn and believe I am right all the time, but when I am wrong I have the courage to admit it. You’re such an intellectual coward that you will never admit when you were so clearly and utterly wrong.

Or maybe I am wrong. Let’s hear it from others on the site and see what they think…

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:55:46 +0000

Well, for starters- we do not have the money for half- assed projects like these- we need to get ourselves out of the muck first. second, its less than a mile total- the hypocrisy abounds when you consider the rest of the roads that can’t get this treatment.
And yes, D- I do not care if you die, but I do care for wildlife- I just do not do it in an idiotic way, for a feel good result like apparently liberals do. The fact that this makes sense to you in this day and time, when we have no money, shows how out of touch you both are.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:11:11 +0000

But Blake was very concerned about wildlife when he thought he could use it as reason to be against windmills.

By: Darrel

Darrel — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:07:42 +0000

I think you are on to something again Blake. I ignore insults because I know they are a substitute for reasoned argument, which is what I am interested in.

You don’t spend most of your time throwing insults because you have good reasons to support your claims. You act this way because you don’t.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:36:10 +0000

“I would have no problem with this project if I thought that turtles would actually use and benefit from this underpass…”

You act like this project is just so stupid and lacking of common sense that everybody should know it will not work. After all, turtles aren’t that bright, right? They’ll never know to use it, right?

Your argument is perhaps the most hilariously flawed argument I’ve seen in a while. If I hadn’t seen you build up to such funny conclusions in the past I might think you were joking now.

Yet, this is not the first project of it’s kind. For instance skim through this final report on Paynes Prairie ecopassage project in Florida started about 10 years ago that has had a lot of success. The report states:

Wildlife mortality decreased substantially on US Highway 441 across Paynes Prairie State Preserve after construction of the Paynes Prairie ecopassage, although trespass has not been prevented completely. However, the wall-culvert design was effective in reducing and, in some cases, nearly eliminating highway-related mortality and yet allowed for the passage of some individuals under this very busy highway.

See that? The wall-culvert design was effective on that project. Do you think it won’t be effective at Lake Jackson? If not let’s hear why, otherwise admit it will work and declare your support for this project as you said you would have no problem doing.

If a feel good project creates jobs in hard times like these on work that both protects drivers and is part of good wildlife stewardship, then what is the downside again? What is more important than that?

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:31:27 +0000

Except that part of this boondoggle is my money. If the state of Florida wants it bad enoughthey will pay for it- if Florida cannot, then these active in the community” should donate- perhaps have a bake sale, or throw stones at Adam (he’ll volunteer, right?).