• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Fracking going on in your town yet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter POP
  • Start date Start date
Oh, and guess who will step up and represent the victims of negligent frackers?? Why those sniveling, lying, greedy lawyers ... funny how that works, ehh?

And guess what else the lying, greedy lawyers will also be busy doing? Trying to **** the people, who really get injured from neglect, out of their just compensation. At every turn, a pack of rats will be doing everything in their power to screw lower and middle income people out of what they deserve. What a wonderful way to go through life: trying to screw over good people at every turn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Erin is a flat out hero. But was never a lawyer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And guess what else the lying, greedy lawyers will also be busy doing? Trying to **** the people, who really get injured from neglect, out of their just compensation. At every turn, a pack of rats will be doing everything in their power to screw lower and middle income people out of what they deserve. What a wonderful way to go through life: trying to screw over good people at every turn.

Hey, your victim card company called and reported that your victim card has been stolen.

No, idiot, the people who have had their property damaged or who suffered injury will call lawyers to help them.

Lawyers themselves have their activities regulated by states and can be sued for negligence or wrongdoing. They therefore look to get a favorable outcome for their clients - and themselves.

The fact that you admittedly don't know a single lawyer and yet bray this asinine bullshit is proof that you are making **** up.

Oh, and you do realize that your clip IS FROM A ******* MOVIE, i.e., FICTION?!?!?

Here is something about an actual lawyer doing actual work for clients in a lawsuit against DuPont:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html

The article is very lengthy and I don't expect you to read it. However, the story is known to me and common to lawyers in my trade.

We take on cases with zero guarantee. You get that, don't you? What is your guaranteed hourly rate? Mine is zero - but in outcome, I do just fine for my clients, and as a result, for myself.

So enough with believing movies, and a story from some idiotic blog. Plaintiff lawyers take on cases and get their clients hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of dollars, with no guarantees, while taking on multi-million and billion dollar companies.

And again, guess who will represent the landowners whose person and property was harmed by negligent fracking?

Lawyers.

Guess who owes a fiduciary duty to do the best for their clients in such claims?

Lawyers.

Guess who works for free unless he actually WINS THE ******* CASE?

Yep, lawyers.

Guess who funds the litigation, to the tune of up to $125,000 for me in one case?

Yep, lawyers.

Yes, I shelled out $125,000 of my own money to fund a client's case. With zero money coming in on that case until I prevailed.

So, tough guy, how many times have you gone into debt to the tune of $125,000 representing a total stranger in a case against a multi-million dollar defendant?

Yeah, thought so.
 
Hey, your victim card company called and reported that your victim card has been stolen.

No, idiot, the people who have had their property damaged or who suffered injury will call lawyers to help them.

Lawyers themselves have their activities regulated by states and can be sued for negligence or wrongdoing. They therefore look to get a favorable outcome for their clients - and themselves.

The fact that you admittedly don't know a single lawyer and yet bray this asinine bullshit is proof that you are making **** up.

Oh, and you do realize that your clip IS FROM A ******* MOVIE, i.e., FICTION?!?!?

Here is something about an actual lawyer doing actual work for clients in a lawsuit against DuPont:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html

The article is very lengthy and I don't expect you to read it. However, the story is known to me and common to lawyers in my trade.

We take on cases with zero guarantee. You get that, don't you? What is your guaranteed hourly rate? Mine is zero - but in outcome, I do just fine for my clients, and as a result, for myself.

So enough with believing movies, and a story from some idiotic blog. Plaintiff lawyers take on cases and get their clients hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of dollars, with no guarantees, while taking on multi-million and billion dollar companies.

And again, guess who will represent the landowners whose person and property was harmed by negligent fracking?

Lawyers.

Guess who owes a fiduciary duty to do the best for their clients in such claims?

Lawyers.

Guess who works for free unless he actually WINS THE ******* CASE?

Yep, lawyers.

Guess who funds the litigation, to the tune of up to $125,000 for me in one case?

Yep, lawyers.

Yes, I shelled out $125,000 of my own money to fund a client's case. With zero money coming in on that case until I prevailed.

So, tough guy, how many times have you gone into debt to the tune of $125,000 representing a total stranger in a case against a multi-million dollar defendant?

Yeah, thought so.

You're having real trouble understanding the wishes of the board owner?

And, boo hoo, I feel so sorry for you ambulance chasers, because your $ isn't guaranteed, but don't bother mentioning you don't take cases unless you think they are an iron clad win. You left that part out, didn't you?

Or that you pocket 30% of the payment to the consumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

Just a movie?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pop,

why would your comments be more useful than Steel time's?
He cites actual litigation, not movies, real life experience, not someone's emotional viewpoint, and backs it all up with cogent references.
You can go on like you are want to do, flaming others, like Steeltime, but why further demonstrate your ignorance?
 
Everyone loves the idea of money for nothing, so it sucks people in. But they pump millions of gallons with toxic chemicals into the soil. What happens if those toxins leak into the water table? Poison. It has lead to land just turning brown, not capable of growing any plants.

You do understand that fracking doesn't pump anything into "the soil" don't you? The wells are drilled in rock thousands of feet below the surface. Again, there have been spills, just like there have been oil spills and tar spills and and probably spills of every toxic substance that has to be transported for one reason or another. But the wells themselves are too deep in the ground to contaminate drinking water or soil. Methane is a naturally occurring gas that is often present in trace amounts in ground water, whether there is fracking going on or not. It is not generally a health or safety hazard unless it is at very high concentrations.

Every source of energy including wind and solar has some negative environmental impacts. There is just no getting around that. There is little to no evidence that on balance, the impacts of fracking are much greater than any other source of energy.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...minate-drinking-water-yale-study-confirms.htm
 
Last edited:
You do understand that fracking doesn't pump anything into "the soil" don't you? The wells are drilled in rock thousands of feet below the surface. Again, there have been spills, just like there have been oil spills and tar spills and and probably spills of every toxic substance that has to be transported for one reason or another. But the wells themselves are too deep in the ground to contaminate drinking water or soil. Methane is a naturally occurring gas that is often present in trace amounts in ground water, whether there is fracking going on or not. It is not generally a health or safety hazard unless it is at very high concentrations.

Every source of energy including wind and solar has some negative environmental impacts. There is just no getting around that. There is little to no evidence that on balance, the impacts of fracking are much greater than any other source of energy.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...minate-drinking-water-yale-study-confirms.htm

And again the frackers wastewater turned the mon river brackish ... And the PA dep admitted some contamination from fracking in water, just non toxic contamination... That isnt some nonsense its docunented in the hearings over fracking in pa... The oh its fine propaganda is absurd...its literally on par with the global warming is all man made nonsense. They pump chemicals into the ground to break up the shale and release tge trapped gasses... Its a bad idea period unless you absolutely are resourse starved, and we are not....

Thats why fracking companies want a zero liability out if long term contamination of the water table is found... They are dirty underhanded crooks piping much of the recovered resources out of the country for profit with little taxation and sham corporations to take the fall when the enviromental impacts are felt...
 
And the natural gas is mostly being liquified and exported overseas these days... While we do have a shortsge of power plants thanks to the inane war on coal coupled with lack of new efficient nukes being built, the standard daily energy needs are still mostly hydro, coal and old nuclear filled, well after whatever pittance green chips in... Most gas plants i test only run when its extremely hot or cold or some larger plants are in outages... The unit i tested last year has been on once in the last two years... The one this week was just on for the test... It's still cheaper to run one 1300 mgwt coal unit than a **** ton of 78 mgwt gas units
 
Where are all the dead fish in the Mon?

They caught it before it went above the saline threshold for freshwater fish.. Its why they arent allowed to use local wastewater treatment plants for fracking water waste anymore...they pump it underground in ohio now... Or put it in old mine shafts...
 
And again the frackers wastewater turned the mon river brackish ... And the PA dep admitted some contamination from fracking in water, just non toxic contamination... That isnt some nonsense its docunented in the hearings over fracking in pa... The oh its fine propaganda is absurd...its literally on par with the global warming is all man made nonsense. They pump chemicals into the ground to break up the shale and release tge trapped gasses... Its a bad idea period unless you absolutely are resourse starved, and we are not....

Thats why fracking companies want a zero liability out if long term contamination of the water table is found... They are dirty underhanded crooks piping much of the recovered resources out of the country for profit with little taxation and sham corporations to take the fall when the enviromental impacts are felt...

You are talking about dumping of wastewater into the river which is a separate issue, I'm referring to contamination of groundwater and soil from the fracking process itself which there is no evidence is actually happening. It should stand to reason that dumping wastewater into rivers is probably not a good idea (although the water is treated first and some say not harmful).

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/na...ted-waters-from-gas-boom/stories/201101040195
 
The mon stunk like old swamp water for a few weeks though... And the frackers swear it wasnt them... It was some other massive source of bromide being pumped into the river that miraculously stopped when they were forced to stop... Magic i guess
 
You're having real trouble understanding the wishes of the board owner?

I'm a contributor, so I think I qualify as a board owner.

How goes your effort to become a contributor, POOP? Yeah, right ...

And for you to sob about how mean I am being is laughable. Do you ever read the stuff you post? If not, you have that advantage over me.

And, boo hoo, I feel so sorry for you ambulance chasers, because your $ isn't guaranteed, but don't bother mentioning you don't take cases unless you think they are an iron clad win. You left that part out, didn't you?

Yes, of course, I simply sit in my office and wait for those innumerable (that means a lot, POOP) "iron clad" cases. Why, there are so many of them I spend most of my day turning down million-dollar cases, because I am too busy signing up multi-million dollar cases.

And work to prove my case? Pffffft, litigation is just like a Perry Mason episode. My cross-examination is so powerful that some company representative in the audience - not even on the witness stand, mind you - stands up and says, "Yes, we did it and owe your client a ****-ton of money."

Why defendants never fight the claims, or hide evidence, or use their economic leverage to affect witnesses, or lie, or anything of the sort. Instead, they simply show up a day or so after I file the lawsuit with one of those giant-sized golf checks. Why, here is one event just this morning:

blanchar_big_check.jpg


Another day at work, another giant check handed over by a willing defendant. I mean, we all know how easy it is to get people to pay money they deny owing, right? I just "Perry Mason" one of their guys, and POOF!! Giant check.

Oh, and don't base your ignorant opinions about the legal practice on a movie or on Erin Brockovich, who was a salaried employee of a law firm, Masry & Vititoe, that actually spent the money and took the risk on the case.
 
You do understand that fracking doesn't pump anything into "the soil" don't you? The wells are drilled in rock thousands of feet below the surface. Again, there have been spills, just like there have been oil spills and tar spills and and probably spills of every toxic substance that has to be transported for one reason or another. But the wells themselves are too deep in the ground to contaminate drinking water or soil. Methane is a naturally occurring gas that is often present in trace amounts in ground water, whether there is fracking going on or not. It is not generally a health or safety hazard unless it is at very high concentrations.

Every source of energy including wind and solar has some negative environmental impacts. There is just no getting around that. There is little to no evidence that on balance, the impacts of fracking are much greater than any other source of energy.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...minate-drinking-water-yale-study-confirms.htm

Really, wind and solar turn your drinking water into poison?

I love the defence of A: "Fracking only poisons land and water when there are mistakes." And then in the next breath, B: admit that mistakes have occurred and will keep occurring. So what is the point of even stating A. to begin with?
 
I'm a contributor, so I think I qualify as a board owner.

How goes your effort to become a contributor, POOP? Yeah, right ...

And for you to sob about how mean I am being is laughable. Do you ever read the stuff you post? If not, you have that advantage over me.



Yes, of course, I simply sit in my office and wait for those innumerable (that means a lot, POOP) "iron clad" cases. Why, there are so many of them I spend most of my day turning down million-dollar cases, because I am too busy signing up multi-million dollar cases.

And work to prove my case? Pffffft, litigation is just like a Perry Mason episode. My cross-examination is so powerful that some company representative in the audience - not even on the witness stand, mind you - stands up and says, "Yes, we did it and owe your client a ****-ton of money."

Why defendants never fight the claims, or hide evidence, or use their economic leverage to affect witnesses, or lie, or anything of the sort. Instead, they simply show up a day or so after I file the lawsuit with one of those giant-sized golf checks. Why, here is one event just this morning:

blanchar_big_check.jpg


Another day at work, another giant check handed over by a willing defendant. I mean, we all know how easy it is to get people to pay money they deny owing, right? I just "Perry Mason" one of their guys, and POOF!! Giant check.

Oh, and don't base your ignorant opinions about the legal practice on a movie or on Erin Brockovich, who was a salaried employee of a law firm, Masry & Vititoe, that actually spent the money and took the risk on the case.

Steel-rat-turd, with each and every post, you actually prove you are the rat most associate with being a lawyer. Are you the fat guy on the left, or the pencil neck on the right?
 
I'm a contributor, so I think I qualify as a board owner.

Steel-rat-turd, for a supposed ambulance chaser, you sure don't understand law very well.

You think being a contributor equates to you being an owner? So Justin doesn't own this, you do, just because you throw in 80 bucks a year? That is your contention?

So, if I pay rent, I actually am the owner of the house?

Boy, you really aren't all that bright, are you?

Steel-rat-turd, the ambulance chaser.
 
Steel-rat-turd, for a supposed ambulance chaser, you sure don't understand law very well.

You think being a contributor equates to you being an owner? So Justin doesn't own this, you do, just because you throw in 80 bucks a year? That is your contention?

So, if I pay rent, I actually am the owner of the house?

Boy, you really aren't all that bright, are you?

Steel-rat-turd, the ambulance chaser.

Uh-oh, looks like I "triggered" the little fella.

So how goes your effort to become a contributor?

1304618376_tumbleweed-gif.gif
 
Steel-rat-turd, with each and every post, you actually prove you are the rat most associate with being a lawyer. Are you the fat guy on the left, or the pencil neck on the right?

Jesus, are you really this stupid, or just pretending to be this stupid to make others feel better about themselves?

It's a Google image, you ********.
 
Jesus, are you really this stupid, or just pretending to be this stupid to make others feel better about themselves?

It's a Google image, you ********.

Still not bothering to follow the owner's wishes? Just like the rat lawyers: you have no moral compass. You think decent behavior is something that doesn't apply to you, Steel-rat-turd.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/lawyers-the-most-despised-profession-in-america/

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

— William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2

Society has hated lawyers since the dawn of time
. The law is a profession that often gets little respect, in part because the bad tends to overshadow the good. After all, you’re far more likely to hear about the lawyer who allegedly masturbated on a coworker’s dress or the lawyer who billed a client for sex or the lawyer who drunkenly tossed her panties at the police than the lawyer who zealously represented a client.

As if the Rodney Dangerfields of the professional world weren’t reviled enough, Americans have stepped forward to slap lawyers in the face yet again. Please, take your law degree and wipe your *** with it, because in the court of public opinion, you’ve contributed nothing to society…


According to the latest Pew Research Center survey on professional public esteem, lawyers were rated at the bottom of the barrel. As shown in this chart, outside of the profession, no one really cares about your prestigious legal pedigrees. Lawyers are apparently the dregs of society. From Pew:

Steel-rat-turd, your profession is the most despised on the planet. You are hated by everyone. What is that I hear? It's an ambulance. Put on your shiny shoes and chase after it. Go!
 
Uh-oh, looks like I "triggered" the little fella.

So how goes your effort to become a contributor?

1304618376_tumbleweed-gif.gif

Steel-rat-turd, for a supposed ambulance chaser, you sure don't understand law very well.

You think being a contributor equates to you being an owner? So Justin doesn't own this, you do, just because you throw in 80 bucks a year? That is your contention?

So, if I pay rent, I actually am the owner of the house?

Boy, you really aren't all that bright, are you?
 


Steel-rat-turd defends fracking and thinks he owns this site because he pitches in 80 bucks.

For being a snake, he sure doesn't understand the law very well.
 


Steel-rat-turd defends fracking and thinks he owns this site because he pitches in 80 bucks.

For being a snake, he sure doesn't understand the law very well.


ST is a stakeholder here, as are many others.....because they contribute. You, on the other hand, are freeloader, and a waste of bandwidth. See the difference?
 
ST is a stakeholder here, as are many others.....because they contribute. You, on the other hand, are freeloader, and a waste of bandwidth. See the difference?

Uh-oh. Get ready to be YouTubed!!
 
Still not bothering to follow the owner's wishes? Just like the rat lawyers: you have no moral compass. You think decent behavior is something that doesn't apply to you, Steel-rat-turd.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
— William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2

Steel-rat-turd, your profession is the most despised on the planet. You are hated by everyone. What is that I hear? It's an ambulance. Put on your shiny shoes and chase after it. Go!

You clearly did not read Henry VI. Unlike you, I actually read Henry V (the more famous of the Shakespeare plays about the Lancaster line of succession, including the awesome St. Crispin day speech) and Henry VI. I read Henry V while in high school and have re-read it a couple of times since, and read Henry VI in college. So let me educate you on the plot and the line you stupidly parrot, you ignorant ****.

The quotation from the Shakespeare play comes from a loathesome character named Dick the Butcher, a follower of a paid revolutionary in the same story named Jack Cade. Cade was paid to incite violence and revolution by a political opponent of the king, who hoped to benefit from the discord to seize the crown. Dick's comment comes after Cade makes Hillary-like promises of free goodies to the public if they support his revolution, and is offered by a murderous villain in support of a lying, paid treasoner, hired to foment revolution.

The reason for those Shakespeare characters hating lawyers? You share this with the ignorant low-lifes - they were jealous and spiteful of the educated and those who could read and write. This LA Times article does a superb job of explaining how stupid you are for citing the Dick the Butcher comment as an actual indictment of the legal profession:

Cade rides into London with a bunch of ruffians, claims the crown and sets up a rump court. To whip the crowds into a frenzy of support, Cade uses a familiar device. He, like politicians today, knows that entitlements are popular and taxes are not. So what does he promise if he is crowned?

* There shall be no money: "All shall eat and drink on my score."
* Seven half-penny loaves (3 1/2 cents) shall sell for a penny.
* All the realm shall be owned in common--no private property; just take what you want.
* All shall wear the same livery, "that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord."

Well, that sounded pretty good to the crowd. Dick the Butcher shouts enthusiastically, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." There it is--the phrase so frequently used to damn the legal profession
, shouted by a butcher in response to an ex-convict and confidence man who was in London to foment anarchy, burn the city and loot the commonwealth.

But that's not all. Cade shows us what his world would be like without lawyers. Immediately after Dick the Butcher mouths his famous line, a clerk enters. Someone accuses the clerk of being able to write and read. Cade orders, "Hang him with his pen and inkhorn about his neck." Yes, second thing let's do, let's kill anyone who can write or read.

Well, what goes round, comes round. Cade, the friend of lawyers, is killed in the end. His head is paraded through London and his body is left for "crows to feed upon." We do not know for certain, but Jack Cade's last words on Earth might appropriately have been: "A lawyer, a lawyer, my kingdom for a lawyer."
**

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-14/local/me-1614_1_jack-cade

In other words, you stupid, lowlife, ignorant, ill-bred, uneducated, ignorant, foil hat-wearing, conspiracy-loving, dumbass goober, the Shakespeare quotation does not mean what you think it means.

Further, you have a tendency to cite and link articles you obviously have not read. I already pulled your pants down on the idiotic "102 unarmed blacks killed by police officers" claim, so one would think you learned your lesson and actually read what you ******* cite.

Apparently not. The article you linked about the popularity of lawyers - thereby attesting as to its value and accuracy - says in part, "If you don’t think lawyers have contributed to society, take a look at the desegregated school you or your children attended. Go register for a concealed-carry permit in a state that once restricted their issuance. Attend a same-sex marriage and bask in the newlyweds’ joy. Burn a flag. Watch a film with a sex scene at the movies." In short, the article pointed out specific reasons why the profession did not deserve the vague, generalized low standing of professions. (Oh, and the same survey found that only 21% of the population thought that business executives had any value to society. What bunch of cousin-*******, goat-herding asswipes did they survery?!?)

Further, the undeniable truth of the matter is that citizens like their own lawyers. The "hate" of the legal profession that you claim exists is remarkably absent in terms of what people feel about lawyers they have actually dealt with.

Also, you are in such a low income and professional level that you brag about not knowing any lawyers. Therefore, your purported comments about lawyers is asinine. It really is no different than somebody badmouthing African-Americans, throwing around the "n" word, and then admitting he has never met or spoken to an African-American.

That's you, pal, the ******* blowhard wagging his finger about the legal profession, and having less knowledge of lawyers and the law than the average 3rd grader.

Finally, you are obviously too embarrassed to identify what you do for a living - I am guessing selling popsicles and picking up recyclables based upon your astounding level of ignorance - but I am confident, very confident, that I have a lot more people I encounter in my profession who send me Christmas cards, and invite me to their son's football games, and call me to say "hello," than you ever will.

Unless, I guess, one of your patrons needs to build one of those houses out of popsicle sticks and old soda cans. Then you are the go-to guy.


** I will of course need to explain this to the unread and idiotic POOP. In Richard III, another Shakespeare history, the antagonist is the title character, the malformed Richard III, who loses at the battle of Bosworth field. Richard III loses his horse during the battle, sees that the end is near, is desperate to rally his forces, and cries out, "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!" See what the author did there? Well, of course not. Have ark explain it to you.
 
Top