Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
It is comments like yours that alienate many who support solar, wind and
renewable energy, but who are conservative politically and morally. By doing
so, you are limiting the base of support for renewables to only those
persons who support renewables for the same reason that you do. Your
reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
(literally) own the media - TV, newspapers, and magazines." is out of line.
I believe that it is also naive to believe that conservatives do not love
the environment and that they control the media.
As I have said before, I will say again: Keep your political jabs to
yourself. Keep this discussion group on the issues.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
> In response to Claude's fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding
> objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about
> energy is absolutely proper in discussing the costs of existing forms of
> energy production. And the direct and indirect costs of nuclear energy,
> including from waste products or terrorists attacks, fall under the
> of this group.
> Subsidies of conventional energy sources have been a formidable barrier to
> incorporation of RE and alternative energy technologies. If we can not
> about the unfair practices (of
> on-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-energy), then we have, in effect, sold out to
> conservative right wing corporate types who already (literally) own the
> - TV, newspapers, and magazines. Please note how the Bush/Cheney Energy
> supports advancing nuclear energy storage capability. Mmmm, that means
> subsidization, and that means RE is treated unfairly.
> I can not help but think that so many tragic and pitiful events are
> to occur in this world because not enough voices are heard from the
> tax-paying-and-ruled-to-death citizens. There will be NO restriction to
> is discussed on this list, as long as discussion is not vulgar, personally
> attacking, or intended merely to inflame.
> (NOTE, the last transmission was inadvertently sent without my comments.
> have had problems with the use of the mouse and the Reply button in our
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Mr. Bell,
I am puzzled as to why anyone would be alienated (as you say) by my comments.
My commentary is in response to someone (Mr. Foster) wishing to unilaterally
restrict commentary on this HREG list. I have insisted that no such
objections and limitations should apply to this list.
You have presumed quite a bit in your latest comments. You have
re-interpretted and ascribed my commentary as "political jabs". Do you
really think that my comments were political jabs?
My reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
(literally) own the media" was part of a conditional if-then clause. If you
prefer to take such a comment out of context (a context relating to unfair
restrictions on the list), too bad, for it would be you who might be
alienating the conservatives on this list.
You presume that I am attacking ("jab"ing) conservatives (who also love the
environment). I have been on this list for over two years and have never
been accused of mistreating or dishonoring those with conservative
viewpoints. There are conservatives who own media publications and there are
those who do not. Correct me if I am wrong - Westinghouse, General Electric,
and Disney own the three major TV networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC. Murdoch owns
Fox TV. Time Warner owns CNN. These owners are corporations. Their sole
purpose is to make profits for the shareholders. They all do a lot of
advertising for other corporations. I personally believe that large
corporations are typically conservative, since liberal or opposing
philosophies usually mean cuts into their profits. I also know Westinghouse
and GE have long time vested interests in the nuclear and electricity
A fair question might be - have these corporations controlled or filtered, or
attempted to control or filter the content of their programs on the networks?
Mmm. I would wonder why Public TV exists, if not for the concern that the
public may not be afforded their just due (programs covering the interests of
the public realm) by Private TV. The fact is, these corporations CAN, by
virtue of their board or directors and self-appointed management, dictate any
viewpoints they want. I would not wish to get into all that on this list.
Suffice it to say, we have guidelines and common decency for all to follow
here, but do not have overriding power to bias the conversations in favor of
one viewpoint over another.
Thank you for expressing your opinions. I have faith that your intentions
are good and that you have a certain understanding of what I said or what I
meant to say. I only ask (of everyone on the list) that everyone be allowed
to clarify their positions, as I have done here, if viewpoints seen
contentious or improper.