Monday, January 28, 2008

Tribgate

You know what really bugs me about the Tribune?

It's not that they said they would publish my recent Viewpoint, but never did, until I published it here, on my blog, and THEN, Tribune managing editor, Tad Weber, contacted, opinion page editor, Stephanie Finucane, one day after I posted my piece, with this:

- - -
Hi Ron,
Tad forwarded me your blog entries. Again, we have no problem running your letter and posting your viewpoint. We’ll try to get that in later in the week.

To ensure that your letters are processed more expeditiously in the future, please address them to letters@thetribunenews.com.

Thanks so much,
Stephanie
- -

... and THEN, about two weeks after my initial submission, they finally published my Viewpoint (on their web site)... one day after I published it on my blog (along with some scathing commentary, where I reiterated my original take that the Tribune's reporting on this story over the past 11 years has been "worse than nothing." Funny, sad, and true!)

And it's not even that Finucane told me that when they published my piece, they would post my "entire piece on our Web site and refer to it from the letter," but then never referred to it from the letter.

No.

What really bugs me about the Tribune, is that in my Viewpoint, I concisely, and perfectly, show how the 2005 Los Osos Community Services District Board sat and listened to a roughly 10-1 ratio of Los Osos residents that begged them to set the recall election date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, and then that same board promptly ignored that 10-1 ratio and set the recall election date at one of the LATEST possible dates -- because they could, because they, like ALL board majorities facing recall in California, took advantage of that terrible law that I'm trying change -- and by setting the election at one of the latest possible dates, they were able to not only out-raise their opponents in campaign contributions by about a 3-1 clip (with the lion's share of the contributions coming from all the contractors and engineering firms that stood to make a ton of cash off the embarrassing and illegal Tri-W project), but they also created the window of time needed for them to cash a $6 million dollar State check, and then immediately begin wasting that money on an unpopular, embarrassing, illegal, mid-town sewer plant... that ripped up a bunch of officially classified "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area," and also, in that same Viewpoint, I reported how the top elections official in SLO County, Julie Rodewald, told me that, had it been her decision to make, she would have set that date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, and the Trib, apparently, STILL doesn't seem to find any of that newsworthy.

[MEMO to Trib Editors and Reporters: The reason Rodewald told me that is because I picked up something called a "telephone," pushed some buttons, and asked her this question: "If it had been your decision to make, would you have set the Los Osos recall election date closer to the earliest possible date or closer to the latest?" It's called reporting. You guys might want to try it sometime.]

$6 million of State funds wasted, for no reason whatsoever. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat ripped up... for no reason whatsoever. A 10-1 "Please, set the recall election date at one of the earliest possible dates" ratio, and the Trib refuses to report on any of it, despite the fact that my Viewpoint outlines all of it... perfectly.

I swear, if you look at the Trib's reporting on this story over the past 10 years, and then look at my reporting on this story over that same time frame, it looks like we're reporting on two completely different stories.

However, the ginormous problem for the Trib these days is this: Three people that don't live anywhere near Los Osos -- Assemblyman Blakeslee, SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, and me -- all sat and watched the 2005 LOCSD Board majority listen to, and then ignore, that 10-1 ratio, and, today, all three of us are on the exact same page.

Think about it...

Not only did Rodewald tell me she would have set the date at one of the earliest possible dates, she even went so far as to recommend that the Secretary of State should set recall election dates, after I first proposed that the date be set by the county's top election official.

Blakeslee, after witnessing first-hand (like me and Rodewald) the colossal damage that can result from allowing elected officials that are facing recall to set their own recall election date, chose my "What Ought to be a Law" idea as one of the seven finalists in his contest, after receiving some 250 entries.

It would appear that Blakeslee, Rodewald, and SewerWatch are on one page, and the Trib, for reasons unknown, is on another.

###

76 Comments:

  • Ron, no matter how miffed you are at the Triv.,it can't compare to how much I am.

    I'm actually going to PAY for the Triv's. negligence to be a good steward of the first amendment.

    So it goes.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 7:23 PM, January 28, 2008  

  • Kudos Ron,

    Your "piece(s)" are thoughtful, balanced and very well written. What would the County of SLO look like if you were editor of the Tribune for a month?

    It's a shame for http://www.mcclatchydc.com/ that its SLO Tribune demonstrates such a vacuous nature of the reporting on anything Los Osos septic tank discharge elimination project (LOSTDEP).

    If hindsight is 20/20, I would hate to be in the crosshairs when the LOSTDEP is finally and fully exposed.

    With so much money, energy, water, pollution and time at stake for so many citizens, I'm afraid history will be even more harsh when judging the lack of good journalism practices on display daily at the Tribune.

    Your "best journalism practices" do add the sorely needed "balance" to the picture.

    Keep up the great work!
    The pen is mightier that the sword...

    Blog on!!

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:29 PM, January 28, 2008  

  • MG wrote:

    "I'm actually going to PAY for the Triv's. negligence... "

    Where's my old-fashion, hand-cranked calculator?

    Ah, here it is.

    Let's see now... $6 million of county taxpayer money flushed down the drain in 1999 when Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" project replaced the county's ready-to-go project, after the Trib wrote a glowing series of reports on Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" project, lending that project badly needed publicity and credibility. Of course, Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" project failed two years after it formed the LOCSD...

    CHACHING!

    $6 million in State taxpayer money pounded into the ground when the office of the SWRCB released the first SRF check in 2005 because the Trib NEVER reported that the Tri-W project was nothing more than an unpopular, "bait and switchy," illegal, environmentally sensitive, embarrassing $200 million park-project-that included-a-sewer-system...

    CHACHING!

    The millions upon millions upon millions of State taxpayer dollars that's been wasted over the past-decade-and-counting due to EVERYTHING spent on the endless meetings and all of the other State's resources needed due to the absolute debacle of forming (and then blubbering along for a decade) the Los Osos CSD on the back of Nash-Karner's failed "better, cheaper, faster" project...

    CHA-FREAKING-CHING!

    Ohhhh...kaaaayyy... let's total this bad boy up...

    $6 million

    CHACHING!

    plus...

    $6 million

    CHACHING!

    plus...

    millions upon millions upon millions upon millions upon millions

    CHA-FREAKING-CHING!

    Grand total... somewhere in the ballpark of $100 million.

    When it comes to who's paid more for the Trib's "worse than nothing" reporting in Los Osos, Los Ososans or Californians?

    We've got Los Osos beat hands down.

    Mark wrote:

    "I'm afraid history will be even more harsh when judging the lack of good journalism practices on display daily at the Tribune. "

    Sweet.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:37 AM, January 29, 2008  

  • Ron,

    You're a hoot.

    Imagine ... $100M wasted and not a dime of that is because of the actions of folks who agree with Ron ... it's all the fault of the Solutions Group, Tribune, Pandora and RWQCB.

    You do have a good point about the attention to detail in the Trib. I wouldn't harsh on them so very much, though. Just like you were bitching about the size of your check from the New Times for your cover story, the Trib cannot afford to pay one reporter to cover the Los Osos beat full-time. Ad and subscription revenues wouldn't cover the cost.

    That being said, it does seem to fall on citizens to do research themselves and not rely on the newspaper or blogs to get the information we really need to make wise decisions.

    Just witness the recall election. Neither the Trib nor Ann's blog (let alone yours) gave readers a thorough enough analysis for them to make a wise decision at the polls. I don't remember Ann or you or the Trib writing anything like "if you vote for the recall, please realize this new board will make dumb decisions until we are $40M in debt and then they'll lose control of the project to the County."

    Had you done the quality research you are asking the Trib to do, you would have made the dangers of the recall clear to us.

    Had you just called (you know, use the phone) the SWRCB and asked them about how easy it would be to move the project site without losing the SRF, you would have been able to help us. Instead, you piddled on and on and on about "bait-n-switchy", not realizing that your single-minded-focus on such minutiae didn't allow you to see the big picture ... that Julie-n-company had an agenda which had a certain outcome ... greater costs for all.

    Don't complain so loudly about the flaws in the Trib until you can admit your own faults.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 2:34 PM, January 29, 2008  

  • Shark wrote:you would have made the dangers of the recall clear to us.
    But would you have heard it, then?
    Are you listening now?

    By Blogger Mark, at 3:03 PM, January 29, 2008  

  • Mark,

    Perhaps you are unaware of the positions Ron and I have taken in the past.

    It is I who argued that a recall would end up costing us a lot and that the net result of an attempt to move from TriW would not be anywhere near as cheap as advocates were telling us.

    Had Ron simply done a bit of poking around and had he an open mind on the topic he would have come to the same conclusion.

    So ... now to your question ... don't you realize that you sound very much like the solutions group and the pro-recall folks who told us (before they got control) that they had a better and cheaper method. Don't you remember than in both of these cases, the costs went way up over what we were told by the one promising the miracle cure.

    That being said, don't you realize that even if you are right about the technical matters of your device, you'll have a very difficult sale in our community?

    Are you sure you've been paying attention?

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 5:54 PM, January 29, 2008  

  • The RECLAMATOR is not for sale, it is used by AES DES to provide a service, which will eliminate the discharge of pollutants.

    From my point of view, the facts on the ground in the LOSTDEP indicate it is the county and its consulting engineer who will have a difficult "sale" given that they have been made aware of the law.

    Did the dreamers have the law and the technology as part of their "plan"?

    By Blogger Mark, at 8:07 PM, January 29, 2008  

  • Mark,

    Both the solutions group and the move the sewer group claimed what you are claiming ... that their plans were the best of all possible worlds, totally legal in every way and that anyone who didn't fully agree was just unwilling to be open to the facts.

    Again, without knowing diddly squat about your technology, it sounds really similar to what we've heard before.

    You also haven't convinced us that our initial impressions of you and your company are incorrect.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 10:03 PM, January 29, 2008  

  • Shark:
    With all due respect, I cannot begin to "convince" someone of something when their bias prevents them from understanding that a conventional sewer and treatment facility is not what congress wanted in chapter 26 of the USC Tiyle 33 when they signed it into law in 1972.

    If you wish to learn about the technology please see the our home page www.NOwastewater.com ...

    If you understand biological process and can read a diagram you like the county's consulting engineers and engineers everywhere will come to know that the future of water has arrived.

    If you are not a process engineer and do not understand biological process then think "cell phone/computer technology" here.

    Technology make those devices better, faster and less expensive.

    I think that if you are married to a ~P~I~P~E~ then the "expense"part of your world will increase.

    Conversly those who would choose technology over the ~P~I~P~E~ would be eliminatig their discharge/satisfying their need, similar to someone who would choose use a cellular phone instead of paying and waiting for 40+ miles of "line" to be laid, maintained and eventually replaced.

    See what I mean. If you don't the engineering, regulatory and all other governmental agencies are supposed to, by law(C26).

    When citizens understand their rights like we hope you will, the discharges in the LOSTDEP will cease in a lawful, expiedient, efficient and economical manner.

    Convinced yet? If not don't worry, the "government" et al is well on their way...

    Government works best when citizens do their part.

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:04 AM, January 30, 2008  

  • When it comes to who's paid more for the Trib's "worse than nothing" reporting in Los Osos, Los Ososans or Californians?

    We've got Los Osos beat hands down."

    Uh Ron, unless something happened that I don't know about, Los Osos is still part of Calif.

    Los Osos will pay all of it's share of that 100big buckos PLUS what we've been fined plus whatever comes out of the Bankruptcy.

    Los Osos wins hands down as the most screwed!

    And Mark, I recommend a close study of the solution group fiasco, this blog is an excellent place to start.
    A question you may want to ask is, would the original ponding idea have mitigated the groundwater pollution?

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 11:03 AM, January 30, 2008  

  • Green:
    I have studied the LOSTDEP and anayized and now promulgate what I know to be the best solution.

    The Big Pond is at the end of a ~P~I~P~E~...Big ponds and pipes are subject to big failures...We are not interested in evaluating anything that is not "best" or not in compliance with USC 33/26(C26), but neither should anyone else.

    Pipes require energy, capital, operation, maintenance, amoritization, environmental and economic "costs. Plus they leak and can fail from day one of use, without detection for years if ever (think Morrow Bay here)(a leaking pipe does not mitigate ground water pollution, ever). The County's TAC won't even consider addressing the issues of exfiltration, carbon footprint or Native American burial site disturbances. I trust other agencies will, if a "process" gets that far.

    The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will remediate every drianfield and recharge point where it is installed.
    Hydraulically balance the lower aquifer with upper aquifer water "locally" without using ~P~I~P~E~> BAM! your in compliance with the NOV's and CDO's. Hyper compliant due to "remdiation" benefit which is a by-product, at no charge(ChaChing!)

    Think incandescent bulb & compact florescent lamp here. It is GREEN.

    By Blogger Mark, at 12:55 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Think repeating history Mark.
    In order to break the cycle of failure in L.O. you need to avoid those failures, especially why they failed.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 1:54 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • The Law and technology that supports its use and promulgatio will be making "history" in the LOSDEP. No kidding.
    It is past time to solve the septic tank discharges-nationwide.

    Technology as required by USC 33/26 makes this possible.
    I fully appreciate what you are saying and that you are saying it to me!

    By Blogger Mark, at 2:04 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Mark, your not getting it.

    The reason all the other attempts have failed isn't because they wouldn't work (in some fashion)

    It was because of political will and personal egos of government, smoke and mirrors backed up with broad based laws and assumptions.

    Do you know why whenever someone mentions the Water Gods they know what it means and why they are considered Gods? ( in a somewhat derogatory way)

    You don't have to convince us of your contraption, Two Words.... Roger Briggs.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 2:49 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • I understand that WaterBoard personnel are board appointed "Civil Servants" constrained by finite "laws and regulations".
    As with every public servant there is an underlying "fiduciary duty" that must be met in order to comply with the law.

    When the meaning of these "words" are not carried out, then administrative "action" must occur. Failing any corrective action, legal action follows.
    Los Osos is located in California which is still located in the U.S.A. and therefore legal redress is always the preferred method of dealing with the "behavior" you have written about.

    On or about February 5, 2008 Tom Murphy's Notice of Claim against the California State ,WaterBoard and certain members of that agency will be converted to a "civil suit".
    I would post a copy here but I do not want to impose upon our blog host. I'm certain that the Tribune will be covering the story in some detail. If not, I'll find a way to promulgate the facts.

    It isn't up to us to "convince" but rather up to those who would regulate and administer the law to abide by that law and therefore "convince" themselves.
    Or one can head to court as we are on or about Feb. 5, 2008. One more step in the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution.

    As I have written before the citizens of Los Osos/Baywood Park shall be seen as "world visionaries" and those who chose to attempt to impede progress will be judged by history as "obstructionists". Its a great time in the life of the LOSTDEP, the future is now. "Stay off the ~P~I~P~E~", it is a dirty, filthy, nasty and very expensive habit.

    Did any other previously offered solution come with the ability to take "Rodger Briggs" to court? Did I miss something?

    By Blogger Mark, at 4:01 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Hey, Mark.
    Go for it.
    I have another slightly derogatory moniker for a certain branch of government. (I'm pulling this one from way back).
    Let's see if you can guess who I'm referring to.

    The Wizards of Glacial Review.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 5:16 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Reminds me of; Unlessand until it has benn operating in "my" jurisdiction for ten years, I will never approve it...

    The problem with that mindset is that it violates federal law.

    I do not know for certain to whom you are referring to when you say; The Wizards of Glacial Review/

    I want to be careful of my use words as evertything I write is in the "public domain" and I want to be a civil as I want others to be.

    "Golden Rule"-

    By Blogger Mark, at 5:24 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • wizards of glacial review= courts and lawyers

    There are several lawsuits going on, some for years.

    It's kind of like Carlock"s, you can take a number, but that may not insure your place in line!

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 6:05 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Will AES accept responsibility for cost incurred to the doomed 45 by fines if the drop dead deadline is not met?

    It's just one of those nonburdens that they bear.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 9:03 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • He who initiates the AES DES service will eliminate; the discharge, the CDO/NOV, the fines and the assessment. BAM! In compliance. BAM! Burden removed.

    By Blogger Mark, at 9:33 PM, January 30, 2008  

  • Mark sez:"On or about February 5, 2008 Tom Murphy's Notice of Claim against the California State ,WaterBoard and certain members of that agency will be converted to a "civil suit".
    I would post a copy here but I do not want to impose upon our blog host. I'm certain that the Tribune will be covering the story in some detail. If not, I'll find a way to promulgate the facts."

    Maybe you can send the legal file to Ron and he can cache it like he does other huge documents, then post notice of your case being filed. Let me know of the filing info and I'll cross link.

    Mark also sez:"He who initiates the AES DES service will eliminate; the discharge, the CDO/NOV, the fines and the assessment. BAM! In compliance. BAM! Burden removed."

    The burden will NOT be removed unless and until a court rules somewhere and the appeals are appealed & etc. which, as Mike Green points, usually falls into the "Glacial Review" column. Also, unless a court issues a restraining order somewhere, the County will proceed doing whatever they're going to do and by the time the Galacial Review is Reviewed, the project will be built and years old and the whole Best Technology issue will be totally MOOT. That's the problem. Regulators can "assert" whatever they want and unless judges "re-assert" then the status remains quo while the damage is done. Then it's all, "Oh, darn, my bad, wellll, it's too late now, but let's learn from our mistakes and now it's time to move on. "

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 6:47 AM, January 31, 2008  

  • Ann wrote:

    "Maybe you can send the legal file to Ron and he can cache it like he does other huge documents, then post notice of your case being filed. Let me know of the filing info and I'll cross link."

    How 'bout this... Mark uploads the file to their web server, and then sends us the link. I'll be happy to link to it too.

    Mark wrote:

    "Did any other previously offered solution come with the ability to take "Rodger Briggs" to court?"

    What you are talking about there is what I, and my excellent source, were talking about at this link:
    http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-there-rosa-parks-in-los-osos.html

    ... where I showed that what Los Osos needs is a test case -- just like my excellent, official source said -- where you print out the RWQCB's Item 19 report, install an "advanced," according to the staff of the RWQCB, composting toilet system, and, then, if the RWQCB says a word, drag them into court and argue that the composting toilet system WAS THEIR IDEA.

    Mark, the problem you and Tom are going to instantly run into IF you win your case, is you will be opening the door for all kinds of on-site alternatives, including "advanced" composting toilet systems. You're going to have some serious competition.

    Too bad that test case didn't happen before the 218 vote.

    You know what I love about Item 19? Is that it contains its very own Pro/Con Report for the use of composting toilets in Los Osos, and the "Pros" are, like, amazingly great -- things like "will" clean the water -- and the "Cons" really aren't that bad -- things like "availability."

    Interestingly, despite the glowing review the staff of the RWQCB gives composting toilet systems in Item 19, composting toilets systems aren't even mentioned in the recent "on-site technical memo" from county staff. Furthermore, John Waddell, of county public works, recently told me that he wasn't aware of the fact that the staff of the RWQCB considered requiring composting toilet systems in Los Osos just a couple of years ago.

    Hmmmmm??????

    We'll have to get that straighten out, huh?

    An anonymous commentor wrote:

    "Both the solutions group and the move the sewer group claimed what you are claiming..."

    The GINORMOUS difference between the Solution Group and the REC Guys (or the "move the sewer group," for that matter), is there isn't a stack of official studies that shows that the REC Guy's plan won't work in Los Osos, like there was with the Solution Group's failed "better, cheaper, faster" project, in the form of the Questa Study, and the Coastal Commission's own 1998 study (that corroborated the Questa Study)... official studies that existed BEFORE the election that formed the LOCSD on the back of the Solution Group's failed "better, cheaper, faster," dead-on-arrival project.

    That dead-on-arrival project destroyed many, many things in Los Osos, and one of them was any good connotation of the phrase "better, cheaper, faster."

    Now, when Los Osoans hear that seemingly good phrase, everyone shrieks.

    Same with "drop dead gorgeous," and "community value," now that I think about it.

    Mark wrote:

    "Did any other previously offered solution come with the ability to take "Rodger Briggs" to court?"

    I'd pay $20 for a seat in that courtroom.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:27 AM, January 31, 2008  

  • Ann, Ron:

    I will put your suggestions regaing "filings" and "files" to use as best I can. I'm just a little busy at the momment. I'm somewhat IT challenged to boot. So be patient, stay strong and wait for signs.

    There should be some more "main stream stuff" breaking soon, regarding all things LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution.

    I appreciate your interest and will work hard to help it "interesting".

    It seems that for some "following the law" is on a par with watching sausage being made. Good thing I like to make sausage "from scratch"...

    By Blogger Mark, at 12:21 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • On the matter of whether the AES service eliminates discharge ... only if the word discharge is re-defined from its current use by the RWQCB. That being said, one who buys into your service would not be in compliance until the RWQCB either issues a discharge permit or until some court determines that the recklamator doesn't need a discharge permit if it is used as a primary method for water treatment. I doubt that either will happen. You've only told us stuff like "the law is on my side" and "our box works" but you're not convincing us that you'll win this battle with the State government. Sure, if you win on all these issues your system might be a good idea (it depends on the long-run costs) ... but as of yet, I've not seen the RWQCB going out and telling people "just sign up for the AES service". Until I do see that, I remain doubtful.

    Your battle is with them and I am only pointing out that we've heard of other "miracle solutions" before and none have worked out as beautifully as promised. Heck, the Pio system that Gail promoted just a few months back now seems to be considerably more costly than a sewer. The Ripley team gave us a conceptual design that didn't fit the bill. The "we have a plan" "$100/month people" had nothing more than promises. The solutions group had an idea which the RWQCB shot down.

    It is hard for me to believe that you and your buddy have such a killer design that you'll cut our costs by 75% and that you'll win every battle with the government before we need a treatment system up and running.

    As for your cellphone example ... cellphone services cost more than the land line and the quality of reception is most often inferior as well. I'm not saying your analogy is right ... just that it is you who made it.

    Pipes are neither good nor bad. Your system is neither good nor bad. The question is what is best for our community. Part of that question relates to the long-term costs of each option. Your $45/month promise reminds me of the $38/month, $100/month and $154/month promises by others who were unable to deliver. There is also the question of legality. Again, while you claim your device doesn't need a discharge permit, folks from the RWQCB might disagree. Even if you are right that your devices work well, I would think that at a minimum the RWQCB would need to see some sort of large scale monitoring and reporting of the characteristics of the discharge. That can't be cheap.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 12:33 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • And, boo-hoo, mark, it's too late to compile THAT body of data because it doesn't exist. Guess you are out of luck.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:48 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Shark: I see you do not understand the law as it relates to definitions and that's fine, for you.
    The regulatory government agencies are "constrained" by legal defintions(as we all are).

    Please be patient, stay strong and wait for signs. The current county process will not have you "hooked" on a ~P~I~P~E~/"before we need a treatment system up and running."

    The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution (LRS) is well underway and can be completed in far less time than any other non-compliant system and the law insists on it.
    The LRS is superior to any previously offered resolution and to any other pollutant elimination technique available. (it's not bragging if it is true)(the law insists on it)

    The $45.75 monthly service contract, in writing that is tied to the consumer price index. Think business not government here.

    Unless and until you spend a little more time studying the US Code and California Water Law you will not have the requisite foundation for a full debate. You will continue to use arguements based on something other than "fact".

    The State WaterBoard got its authority from USC 33/26.

    Toons: Where is your legal foundation?...yibidy,yibidy,yibidy-that's all folks!

    By Blogger Mark, at 3:25 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Shark: In regards to Cellphones vs. Landlines:

    Do you have free long distance on your land line?
    Can you use your land line in your car, beach boat, restaurant, movie theater, park, grocery store, in another city, in another country?
    Can a land line give you internet news, weather, sports, music, directions, send and receive email, pictures, videos, text messages?

    Can conventional sewerage allow you to reclaim 100% of your water for your own beneficial reuse?

    See what I mean?

    My point was about common sense and technology not about cost but as long as you bring it up-15,000.00 & 45.75/month compared to a $127 million Assessment for a non-compliant and unknown project in an unknown location(to most...) at an unknown cost(to most).

    My 10 year old understands the economics of the LOSTDEP. If he can understand it, everyone else should too.

    Toons: I don't wish to seem harsh, but you insist on bringing forward "impressions" that are simply not based upon law. There would be no LOSTDEP without it...
    Can we agree on this?

    By Blogger Mark, at 3:51 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Mark,

    I'm just repeating what folks from the RWQCB told the County in response to your claims that your units were not under their jurisdiction.

    I find it curious that you tell me that I don't understand ... the problem isn't whether I understand or not, the problem is that you have a disagreement with various permitting agencies about whether your system and service are permittable and sufficient to satisfy the Los Osos wastewater treatment needs.

    You can dismiss my legal understanding as much as you want. I am not a lawyer. However, I also want to point out that for all your bluster and volume, you simply aren't convincing me that you will guaranteed beat the RWQCB in a court of law.

    As for your price ... I see no guarantee that you won't raise rates more than you are promising now ... especially if you find your costs higher than you currently expect them to be ... again, think business here ... no business would be foolish enough to promise deliverables that cost more to deliver than they get in payments.

    Speaking of getting hooked ... unless your service is deemed a utility, you will have the power to give us a taste for cheap and then raise the price once we don't have another option. Again, "businesses" do that, not governments.

    Summary ... I'm not buying. I expect that there is some detail that you've overlooked (just like all the rest) that will cause your system and scheme to not be anywhere near as good or as cheap as you're telling us now.

    As for the economics of LOSTDEP which are so very easy to understand ... why not explain to us your cost structure and assumptions about inflation which would justify that $45.75/month fee. Until I see convincing numbers, I'll remain skeptical. Without data you're no more than a guy with an unfounded opinion.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 4:09 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Churadogs wrote:
    The burden will NOT be removed unless and until a court rules somewhere and the appeals are appealed & etc. which, as Mike Green points, usually falls into the "Glacial Review" column. Also, unless a court issues a restraining order somewhere, the County will proceed doing whatever they're going to do and by the time the Galacial Review is Reviewed, the project will be built and years old and the whole Best Technology issue will be totally MOOT. That's the problem. Regulators can "assert" whatever they want and unless judges "re-assert" then the status remains quo while the damage is done. Then it's all, "Oh, darn, my bad, wellll, it's too late now, but let's learn from our mistakes and now it's time to move on. "

    Ann: By now, I think the county has reviewed the "Fraudulent use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo County" doc. posted on the homepage @ www.NOwastewater.com .
    Everyone ought to spend "some" time to study that document, I know its 12 pages and full of "legal" cites but it does make a compelling argument in support of its title, if you know law.

    If it was "tripe" the District Attorney would probably have asked to have it taken down and to cease circulating it. Think WaterBoard activity on 9/7/07 and 9/14/07 here.
    Of course I could be all wet and the document poses no danger to the bonding or loan process as it is so off the mark as to be considered "no threat" to the process.

    Either way the "doc." continues to hang out there like the Sword of Damocles, as I understand there is no statute of limitations on government fraud. I spoke about this recently with a crack reporter at the Tribune, so I'll keep my eyes peeled for any coverage or reporting that should be forth coming.

    I know that citizens affected by the LOSTDEP are "shell shocked", nevertheless I will take issue with your statements and especially "Best Technology issue will be totally MOOT" to the extent that I will say, "not this time"...
    As far as I know no one has yet to inject the high level of technology as embodied in the RECLAMATOR into the LOSTDEP. Knowing and understanding the "law" is most useful when dealing with regulators whose job it is to promulgate and enforce it, no more or no less.

    By Blogger Mark, at 5:14 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Mark, I have to admit I'm really getting to enjoy your posts, especially this one:
    " I spoke about this recently with a crack reporter at the Tribune"

    Sp sp spl splutter, BWA HA HA HA!

    Please please keep it up..........snicker, whew.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 5:26 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Golden Rule Green;-)

    This just in: ( I wanted to post all 50...But it isn't my soil. I have to get a blog going soon.)

    Do you know the Preamble for your state? Very interesting:
    Be sure and read the message at the bottom!

    Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the pe ople of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...


    California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

    After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be "Food for thought", copy and send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

    (Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.)
    "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn
    GOD BLESS AMERICA

    Toons sometimes a quote is need to make the pint we are not the first to be dealing with something.

    By Blogger Mark, at 5:52 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • OMG!

    cargo cult

    A perfectly logical expression of hope through a constructed effigy.
    A religion of tribes in Papua
    Story Poles in Los Osos
    Promulgation of the truth
    Magic sand.
    May the Gods of America finally bless us!

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 8:33 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...

    Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.

    LOCSD still "pledging" alligence to the flag, under God...:-)

    By Blogger Mark, at 9:27 PM, January 31, 2008  

  • Shark:
    Anything written regarding: "what folks from the RWQCB told the County in response to your claims that your units were not under their jurisdiction." ???
    Pete and Repeat were sitting on a fence, Pete fell off who was left?

    No disagreement. Fact is the RECLAMATOR is "ultra-compliant with the LOSTDEP limits" and no leaking non-compliant, non-point source pollution pipes are created!

    Are you ready and authorized to sign a contract for the LOSTDEP? Are you ready to sign one for yourself? After over 100 sucessful projects completed AES has NEFER had a cost overrun! Think factory direct here.

    Our service is provided under contract. Will government provide you with a contract for sewerage? Think Nipomo CSD rate hikes. YIKES!
    AES DES Service contract is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Governments pay out using this figure, but do not "charge" using it.

    Sorry Shark, we are not like the rest, we are "best", for a wide variety of reasons.

    I like your eagerness to get into specifics, I wish you were a current member of the LOCSD Board.
    Soon you and everyone living in LO/BP will have the information necessary to make an informed decision.
    You can bet your bottom dollar that it will far exceed your expectations compared with a county process...

    I know that I am repeating myself here: Be patient, stay strong and wait for signs.
    You will have more than 1, 2 or 3 minutes to be heard, on that you can rely.

    By Blogger Mark, at 8:55 AM, February 01, 2008  

  • That's what Los Osos needs! A preamble! And a constitution. If we only had a constitution with a well worded preamble we probably wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Dang! Why didn't we think of this before. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mark. So let's get on with it.

    Inspired by Marks comment I just finished an intensive and very exhaustive 4 minute study of state preambles. I am now an expert. All hail the internet and its begotten spawn Google! Before we get started let me state I came to this task and completed my research with no preconceived notions or hidden agendas regarding what a constitutional preamble should be. I presume that of the rest of you too. I must also note that many net citations of state preambles selectively edit their presentation of the preambles so as to focus on the state's gratefulness to "Almighty God" for its protection and guidance. Or some such. It is apparent that when it comes to framing preambles plagiarism is the way to go. And many websites use these common boiler-plate references to make their own points about the divinely inspired and self-righteous basis of state government. But no Mark, not all 50 states are so blindly plagiaristic. Take Massachusetts for example which has one of the more lengthy and verbose preambles. It is not until the third paragraph of the preamble - after making reference to the 'body politic' and the 'association of individuals' who compose it - is acknowledgment with grateful hearts to the 'great Legislator of the universe'. Ya gotta appreciate how they capitalize Legislator in order to get out of the 'Almighty God' rut. Brilliant!

    My favorite preamble is Hawaii's. Whose full preamble is here. I think it holds promise to serve as a template for Los Osos.

    > We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage
    > and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by
    > the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o kaaina i ka pono."
    >
    > We reserve the right to control our destiny, to nurture the integrity of our people and culture,
    > and to preserve the quality of life that we desire.
    >
    > We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people,
    > and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth,
    > do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.


    What's not to like here? Sounds very Los Osos to me. We might want to put something in here about eucalyptus trees, sewage, pets, fishing, fog and Cargo Cults. But this is a good start, eh?

    Mark > Be patient, stay strong and wait for signs.

    Very Cargo Cultish. I think I would prefer some documentation.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 10:44 AM, February 01, 2008  

  • mark said about shark:
    "I like your eagerness to get into specifics, I wish you were a current member of the LOCSD Board."

    I guess we can infer from that statement that your reception from them was not too cordial. Seems like a discussion of your product has not hit the CSD agendas, either.

    mark, you might get a clue that the discussion is with the Water Board, NOT the CSD. They have enough lawsuits on their hands and I'm sure do not wish to add another one to further YOUR product. Besides, they (sans Joe) are busy with Ripley and some other outfit with the "perfect" solution for Los Osos.

    You just keep looking for those "signs," mark. The term "cargo cult" describes your understanding of reality perfectly - and the definition of a "true believer?" It's so YOU!

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 2:06 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • Be patient, stay strong and wait for signs. is an old Native American "platitude"...Think Indian Gaming here.

    As far as "documentation" please spend some time reviewing the exhibits at www.NOwastewater.com .

    If after you have reviewed those documents and want more information you (and everyone) are invited to contact me off blog at Mark@NOwastewater.com .

    There is plenty of movement in the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution at the moment, so sooner rather than later the AES DES- LOCSD Re-org/PPP agreement "documentation" will be available. Even though the internet provides a wonderful place to share information, I will observe certain protocol which prevents me from sharing certain information in this venue, at this time...

    When I suggest patience, simply compare the information/timeline of the county with ours, for a check and for balance .

    May I suggest a little study here: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/index.html#caa

    I never tire from reading and promulgating this, as it is illuminating "law": because it is sometimes difficult to read the full text of a law in the U.S.C., and because the section numbers you might be familiar with do not correlate with U.S.C. section numbers

    By Blogger Mark, at 2:33 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult Take your pick and get back with me on which definition you wish to debate.

    The LOCSD represents the "people's interests, Shark seems open and eager to have sincere discussion- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion.

    Are you saying that the LOCSD is actively working with Ripley and another outfit to provide wastewater treatment for the LOSTDEP?

    The Dana Ripley "solution" and the other outfit you refer to are not superior to the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution andwill not qualify foe federalgrant assisstance. They discharge effluent which requires a permit. Think septic tank here. "Please" offer more discussion regarding your statement (sans Joe), you have my attention!

    Sewertoons, any legal action taken by AES DES is for the benefit of the citizens of LO/BP and beyond and will conserve energy, time, money and water, in compliance with US Code. As I have stated previously, a number of times, "change can be diffiCULT"...yibdy,yibidy,yibidy...that's all folks!

    By Blogger Mark, at 3:03 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • I have no wish to debate you mark.

    As long as YOU pay for the legal action, go for it, have fun. Just don't drag Los Osos into paying for it.

    If you have been watching what is going on (and you seem to be attending meetings), you don't need me to fill in the answers to the questions you ask above.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 6:02 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Mike, at 8:16 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • Ok. No debate. Game over?

    Legal activity can take on a life of its own. Think cover up is sometimes worse that the crime itself/Martha Stewart here.

    I did pick up a copy of last nights meeting so I will be reviewing it carefully.

    By Blogger Mark, at 8:25 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • Mark said > Be patient, stay strong and wait for signs. is an old Native American "platitude"...Think Indian Gaming here.

    Please. I'd rather not think Indian Gaming. That depresses me way too much. I admire native American heritage and thinking about where they are today is waaaaaaaaay too depressing for me. And, truth-be-told, I don't recognize this Native American platitude. It just doesn't ring true. They were patient. They were strong - maybe not strong enough - but they did have strength. Their strength has never been doubted or brought into question. Simple fact: they did pretty good considering what they were up against. And, whether this platitude is true or not, I doubt you will find a Native American still waiting today for any signs. I can't help but ask, what is your historical reference for this 'platitude'? Please sir, please provide proper attribution for this platitude. Sounds more Kevin Costner than any chief or wise man I've read about.

    Which leads, curiously enough, to the next topic.

    Mark said > As far as "documentation" please spend some time reviewing the exhibits at www.NOwastewater.com .

    (sigh)

    Exhibits? Get real. OK. I admit I've not been following your many hither-and-yon threads all that closely. Little in them inspired me to do so. They all just seemed so vacuous. A lot of blithering into the wind if you will. Backed by little to no substance. Before you respond please know that I have a history - only 2 to 3 years now - of campaigning on this blog for decentralized site-based waste treatment strategies. I'm a proponent of these solutions. I truly do believe they are the way to go. I believe they offer not only the most cost-effective but also the most appropriate solution to our sewage & clean water situation. I want this strategy to succeed. So please appreciate my angst when you step forward as the Lancelot for my Camelot. I really and truly want your solution - or something similar - to be recognized as the most appropriate if not the only sane solution. But you make that soooooo very hard to do. I've looked at the nowastewater.com website. And I've looked at the AES.com website. I've looked for engineering reports proving the efficacy of the products. I've looked for detailed factual analysis showing how this technology can be proven to be our solution. Reality being what it is I question whether even such proof will win on the ever changing field of play we find ourselves playing on. But lacking such proof there is no chance. This campaign will not be won on good intentions and false premises. Nor will it be won by splitting hairs on the legal definition of 'discharge'. Dude, you're just farting into the wind if you think you're going to take the field with that argument. You either prove you've got a product that will solve the problem or not. What you are presenting as exhibits wouldn't pass muster at a junior high school science fair. Maybe a C for effort. But nothing more. Ya gotta show results to get a B. And ya gotta prove your results to get an A. Please, show me the meat.

    Mark said > If after you have reviewed those documents and want more information you (and everyone) are invited to contact me off blog at Mark@NOwastewater.com.

    Why? If you've got data to share just publish it. If not then no amount of correspondence is going to fill that void. Simply put you're long on words and short on data.

    Mark > I never tire from reading and promulgating this, as it is illuminating "law": because it is sometimes difficult to read the full text of a law ......

    Oh Gawd, choke me with a spoon. This isn't a legal issue. It's an engineering issue. Prove the engineering then maybe it becomes a legal issue. You can only sling so much sewage before it has to be hauled away.

    Lastly ..... regarding cargo cults.

    Mark > Take your pick and get back with me on which definition you wish to debate.

    Dang. I read the wikipedia entry and they ALL seem to apply. What's to debate about?

    Please also note, Cargo Cult goes a ways back on this blog. It has both explicit and implicit meaning here. Ya gotta be willing to dance around a fire - barefoot - with coconut earphones on your head and a vision in your head all the while chanting while twisting dials painted on a cardboard box. Get it?

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 9:04 PM, February 01, 2008  

  • Truth can be a little depressing 13 so I stay focused on the solution/goal that way I stay on a positive step...How about those treatment plant spills? Another one in SanFrancisco this morning...Big leaking pipes, big plants = big failures/big pollution. Sheesh...

    An Apache Tribal Elder from Arizona (whose Tribe operates very successful gaming and resort operations and whom I will leave nameless out of respect to him, his elders and his children) "laid this one on me". Think: Goyaałé (Geronimo) was born to the Bedonkohe band of the Apache, near Turkey Creek, a tributary of the Gila River near the modern-day states of Arizona and New Mexico, then part of Mexico, but which his family considered Bedonkohe land. Later in life, Geronimo embraced Christianity, and stated, "Since my life as a prisoner has begun I have heard the teachings of the white man's religion, and in many respects believe it to be better than the religion of my fathers...Believing that in a wise way it is good to go to church, and that associating with Christians would improve my character, He joined the Dutch Reformed Church in 1903 but later was expelled for gambling.[6].................. Indian Gaming; perhaps the last laugh...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo

    If you are not an engineer or biology process expert/engineer then the "exhibits" which demonstrate the technology will not be of much use to you in your "evaluation" as those exhibits would be "above your pay grade" or beyond a non-industry professional. Of course those at the State, County and their consulting engineers understand the data and what is actually required to determine whether a "process/system/technology is proven. If you are a registered professional engineer, what is your stamp number?

    I will disagree completely with your assessment regarding law and engineering. The LOSTDEP is a legal issue first and foremost. Law "enforcement" is the only thing that will provide the correct solution to the LOSTDEP. Paavo is on record in the Tribune as saying that the County would Evaluate the RECLAMATOR in December 2007 and is also on record as saying "if a technology is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard". The WaterBoard is being taken to Civil Court for Claims it made regarding the RECAMATOR and its performance.

    If you have read the submittal located on the homepage of www.NOwastewater.com and cannot determine that the technology works, I wonder what practical experience you have with removal of pollutants from water which qualifies you to hand out "grades"?

    Also, I am interested in seeing your "choice" for the LOSTDEP as you obviously stand for something as I see you won't just fall for anything. Bring it up onto the beach, close to the fire, remove your head phones and show us your knobs. Let's haggle...Be here now. Or be brave, stay strong and wait for signs.

    Similar to the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution you can choose which way you want to go, sewerage or best? Or you can just keep talking about it...
    Those who want sewerage go for it! Those who want the best go RECLAMATOR.

    Or just kick back and "wait". It's a great country we live in!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Osos
    [edit] Sewer Controversy
    The community is deeply divided over the issue of where a sewer should be built. The cost of the sewer is well over $150 million and many are worried they will have to move because they cannot afford a potential $200- to $300-dollars-a-month sewer bill. There has been a building moratorium for decades because the town's septic tanks are too numerous and concentrated to dissipate nitrates, which are not broken down by septic tanks. Nitrate levels are regulated by federal and state environmental agencies because of the pollutant's health hazards. The Los Osos Community Services District is the agency in charge of building the sewer. It also provides for the town's drinking water, drainage, parks, recreation, and street lighting. Fire and rescue services, and trash services are franchised to outside companies. The CSD was formed after citizens balked at the cost of the county's proposed sewer. However, the price of the current plan has ballooned as a project is repeatedly delayed.

    13- We are making history in Los Osos/Baywood Park This wiki page will be edited to include the AES DES federally compliant, least cost, best available technology solution. Think "world visionaries" here. I'm thinking about the people who " will have to move because they cannot afford a potential $200- to $300-dollars-a-month sewer bill" and the water, everywhere. What is the "vision in your head"?

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:18 AM, February 02, 2008  

  • An Anon wrote:

    "... don't you realize that you sound very much like the solutions group... "

    You know, now that you mention it, I DO notice a distinct similarity between Nash-Karner's marketing tactics and the REC Guys' marketing tactics -- absolute saturation.

    Jeeze...

    Gotta do this, for tradition:

    Patriots: 27
    Giants: 23

    (cuz, not only have I picked the winner the past two years [archived on this blog... boo-yea], my score guesstimates were pretty damn close! This one's the toughest of the three, though. I'm close to picking the upset. I'm of the opinion that had Rivers and Thomlinson been healthy, the Chargers would have won in New England two weeks ago. A lot of those Charger fields goals in that game would have been touchdowns.)

    And, to sneak a word in topic-wise:

    If (read: when) I win Sam's contest, think how awkward it will be for the Trib when they come for a quote, and I get to tell them, "Well, I'd like to thank the Tribune for allowing me to have this amazing, local story all to myself -- a local story that led to a change in statewide election code... and the Trib never reported on it. So, thanks guys, I 'ppreciate it."

    That's gonna be awkward.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:30 AM, February 02, 2008  

  • Mark. I appreciate discourse. I enjoy edification. I don't appreciate or enjoy constant babble. Least I fall into the latter let me keep this brief.

    > If you are not an engineer or biology process expert/engineer
    > then the "exhibits" which demonstrate the technology will not be
    > of much use to you in your "evaluation" as those exhibits would
    > be "above your pay grade" or beyond a non-industry professional....
    > If you are a registered professional engineer, what is your stamp number? .....
    > If you have read the submittal located on the homepage of www.NOwastewater.com
    > and cannot determine that the technology works, I wonder
    > what practical experience you have with removal of pollutants
    > from water which qualifies you to hand out "grades"?


    (sigh) I've scanned the websites you submit as proof. I see some descriptions of how the product works and a huge lot of legal mumbo-jumbo. But I don't see reports about monitored installations. Perhaps I missed them. Is this content there? I ask for links and this is what I get? Can I teach you how to embed a link to make it easier on us all? It's not difficult at all.

    Regarding my (and others) ability to comprehend technical content: I shan't get in to a mine's bigger than yours argument. Like Mr Science, I have a degree in science. And engineering. No, I'm not a sewer engineer (thank god), and I don't have a stamp (do you?), but I'm pretty sure I can read the words in the reports without moving my lips. And yes, I am certified and licensed to give out grades. You still got a C. Dude, I don't want to argue with you. Indeed, I want to support your technology and the business model. I like it. I really do. But you are making it very difficult. I admire your commitment. And your tenacity. But your one note song is getting boring. And your manners are totally lacking.

    Ron said > Patriots: 27, Giants: 23

    I like those numbers too. But since you already picked them I'm gonna go with a slightly lower score with the same results - Patriots: 20, Giants: 17.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 1:59 PM, February 02, 2008  

  • Ron,

    I appreciate your "comparison" of better, faster, cheaper and PN-K's "tactics", with our campaign.

    I think it only fair to point out that our points "best, federally compliant, least cost" may sound similar but they are significantly different in more ways than one.

    Here's one...we own the technology called for in US Code 33/26(the law) and need no EIR to implement it.

    Just for fun in the spirit of a new tradition; AES DES Patriots "Champions" /County Giants zip...
    The AES DES/County Challenge is no one day event...as for the game New England 24 New York 14 (Tom Murphy's call)

    Also Ron, if anyone would know where I could find an electronic copy of the "formerly known as Tri-W" EIR report and Statement of Overriding Concerns, it would be you.
    Can you assist me with this, please.

    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas J. Jackson

    By Blogger Mark, at 2:58 PM, February 02, 2008  

  • Can I teach you how to embed a link to make it easier on us all? It's not difficult at all.

    Great, I'll apreciate the lesson!

    By Blogger Mark, at 3:00 PM, February 02, 2008  

  • Mark,

    This is now twice that you've trotted out the "if you are not an engineer" line. This sort of non-response is exactly the sort of (non)response one would expect from someone trying to pull the wool over one's eyes.

    While I am not a process engineer, I put it out there that I believe that you don't have any exhibits or evidence which do demonstrate your claims. If you really do have the sort of proof that you claim, you should be happy to put it online on your site and a link here. There are engineers in Los Osos as well as wastewater professionals and chemists who would be able to understand at least large parts of what you would provide as proof.

    If you really want to convince folks in Los Osos to sign on the dotted line, you should be eager as heck to convince the most technically astute among us that your system is rock solid.

    While you're doing that, you should also put online some sort of demonstration that your company is so financially solid that we'll not be up a creek (the name of which, sounds strangely familiar) if youre company goes under. I would also like to see the details of your lawsuit against the RWQCB.

    Put it all online so we can really know you are trustworthy.

    Only a charlatan would make claims about this sort of thing if they don't have proof.

    So, Mark, where's your proof?

    I would also ask you ... if you aren't interested in providing the proof you claim you have but you also claim we are not competent to understand ... to just pack up and stop posting and posting and posting all sorts of blather without support ... it's a waste of your time and ours as well.

    ps - Ron ... I appreciate your comment. It reminds me that you really do care. Hugs to you!

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:22 PM, February 02, 2008  

  • Mark > Great, I'll apreciate the lesson!

    Cool. Here ya go. Lesson 1: embed an HTML link in text to link to another location on the web.

    Once you begin authoring your own blog (hint, hint) embedding a link becomes even easier than what I am going to describe below. The authoring editor provides a link button so all you have to do is select some text, press the button and enter (or Cut & Paste) the Go To URL address. (Instructions here). Just like in MS Word. Nothing could be easier.

    Until then, if you want to embed a link in the comments of a blog you need to use some basic HTML coding. Please note, below the 'Leave Your Comment' box at the bottom of this window, the one we all use to submit comments to this blog, there is this line: You can use some HTML tags, such as < b >, < i >, < a > . We are going to use the < a > tag. This is called an anchor tag.

    An HTML anchor link looks like this:
    < A HREF = "http://www.websiteaddress.com" > The Text You Want Displayed< /A >

    The A element denotes an anchor
    The HREF attribute specifies a hypertext link to an HTML document such as a web page elsewhere on the net.

    Here's an example culled from one of your previous comments:
    When you type this:
    "By now, I think the county has reviewed the "Fraudulent use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo County" doc. posted on the homepage @ < A HREF = "http://www.NOwastewater.com/" > www.NOwastewater.com < /A >
    .
    You get this:
    "By now, I think the county has reviewed the "Fraudulent use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo County" doc. posted on the homepage @ www.NOwastewater.com.
    .
    See? Nothing to it.

    But how much better it would be if you supplied a direct link to the document you are referring to and typed this:
    "By now, I think the county has reviewed the < A HREF = "http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/fraudulent_use_218.pdf" > "Fraudulent use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo County" < /A > doc. posted on the NoWastewater.com homepage.
    .
    Which displays this:
    "By now, I think the county has reviewed the "Fraudulent use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo County" doc. posted on the NoWastewater.com homepage.

    Supplying a website link makes it much easier - and much more likely - a reader will actually go to the site and try to find the content you want them to read. Supplying a page specific link as in the second example above ensures the reader will find the exact content you are referring to.

    Got it? If not, there are a near infinite number of HTML tutorial pages on the net. Just search for HTML anchor or A HREF and you can sort through 'em until you find one that works for you.

    Now, please do me a favor. Use this new skill to direct to me some specific pages which supply performance records of monitored installations of your product. The one's you are using to prove proof of product to anybody who really wants to know. Whether you think them capable of understanding the data or not. Thank you. I look forward to giving you an A. Please don't disappoint me.



    *** ADDITIONAL NOTE: In the examples above I had to place spaces between the open and close chevrons ( < and > ) in order for them not to be interpreted as HTML code. When entering the HTML code for your links these spaces must not be there. Any text immediately following an open chevron ( < ) or immediately preceding a close chevron ( > ) are interpreted as part of the HTML code. ***

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 11:12 PM, February 02, 2008  

  • 13,
    You are a real gentlemen. I appreciate the encoding lesson and will put it to work asap. Think old dog new trick here.

    If you and or Shark could point me to a county or waterboard link that provides the kind of data you are requesting from us, that would be helpful.

    Have a Super Sunday ,guys or gals!

    By Blogger Mark, at 6:22 AM, February 03, 2008  

  • I did find this written in November 2007. SLOCO PIS
    Looks like it may have done with Los Osos in mind:
    The allowable leakage in the test section shall not exceed 500 gallons per mile, per 24 hours, per inch diameter of pipe tested at the fivefoot test head.

    Like I have been saying "leaky pipes" that no county or county TAC personell want to address.

    By Blogger Mark, at 6:44 AM, February 03, 2008  

  • Thanks 13! I think I got it!!

    By Blogger Mark, at 6:45 AM, February 03, 2008  

  • I wonder if you would be so kind as to send me the link to the county or waterboard data you have been requesting from us that proves the leakage as specified in The November 2007 report mentioned above or any report that the currently installed leakers, the pipe builders used when they were permitted to build them.

    Would you accept a leaking pipe in your home?
    Why would you want one in your drinking water aquifer?

    It has been my experience that most leaks get worse with time, but the data I am looking for will help prove that in or out.

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:44 AM, February 03, 2008  

  • > 13, You are a real gentlemen. I appreciate the encoding lesson and will put it to work asap.

    You're welcome. Although truth-be-told I did it for a very selfish reason. For weeks now you have been posting all sorts of stuff about how great your product is and whenever questioned about proof of such performance you say it is published here, here, there, and everywhere. I go to those sites and can never find the content. Yet over and over again you say that is my fault, it is there, and if I could just comprehend the lingo it would be apparent to me. I've grown tired of this game. And I sense many others have too. So for all of us I gave you the skills - of a junior high student I might add - to point us more precisely to the content we are looking for.

    > If you and or Shark could point me to a county or waterboard link that provides the kind of
    > data you are requesting from us, that would be helpful.


    I'm confused. Mark, please, don't you see how stupid this is. And how boring it is. I ask you for data which you say exists and now when I give you the means to show us precisely where it is you, uh, ...... I'm not even sure what you are doing here. Other than NOT answering the question. It isn't the waterboard's responsibility to provide proof for your product. If you've got it you've got. If you don't you don't. Its as simple as that. I'm asking for data not more hand-waving and misdirection. Do you know what data looks like? Hint, it will probably be a set of tables & graphs showing garbage in-water/discharge/whatever out, over time, for some specifically identified installations. Installations that can be proven to exist. Maybe even some pictures, not just diagrams. I'm not asking for more discussion about legal process or terminology. Or about financing or digging holes throughout the community. You may think that's important. It may be. Someday. But only if the product works. You've given us nothing to prove it does. If you can't provide this proof then what the H*** are we doing here? Your credibility is completely bogus without this content. Put up or shut up.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 11:20 AM, February 03, 2008  

  • 13-
    Simply put:
    The data contained in the RECLAMATOR Certified Engineering Report was submitted to SLO County on October 29, 2007 and also to the CCRWQCB on October 30, 2007. This is what is required by "regulatory agencies" in order to approve and permit a project. Any consulting engineer "submittal" will be substantially similar to what is posted on our website "free of charge". We just don't need a municipal leaking collection system to make our system comply with the law/statutes.

    Data is not a requirement for the best available technology to be “required”. What IS required, even without ANY data, is that the best “practicable” (practicable means possible) control (control means treatment) pretreatment alternative (which mean onsite control technology) be applied at each source (which means building) prior to discharging into a publicly owned treatment works (which means such as a County collection system). (USC/33/26 1311,1312,1313,1314,1316 & 1317)
    It isn’t about “data”, it is about best practicable demonstrated control pretreatment technology economically achievable. (USC/33/26 Sec. 1317 (a)) This is the RECLAMATOR. Per its data, it qualifies for federal grant assistance.(USC/33/26 Sec. 1329)

    The downloadable annotated version of the US Code 33/26 will make it easy (word "find" tool) for you to study the aspects of the law which are so important to a successful "best" LOSTDEP Solution.

    Leaky collection systems are the reason "pretreatment" is required, by law. A LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution has no need for a leaking municipal collection ~P~I~P~E~. Please let me know when you find the links to the data that proves the leakage on collection systems, like the one the county is "studying". I been asking the County since August 07 and have received no response. The County's TAC said recently they "would not" be considering leakage, carbon footprint or Native American Burial site disturbance. Which is disturbing in itself. Hmmm.

    Paavo in September 07, said that the County would review the "RECLAMATOR" in December 07, but there was no evidence of a review in the Final Draft of Onsite systems. Hmmm...

    The money our "submittal" and the technology saves the people paying for elimination of pollutants is one reason it isn't being embraced as one would logically think. Hmmm...

    Please indentify (or put up) the statute you are using which supports the need for "data" you are seeking. If there is one, I am interested in seeing it.

    By Blogger Mark, at 9:22 PM, February 03, 2008  

  • From Tom Murphy...
    A Score that makes (nearly) everyone a winner:
    RECLAMATOR = ZERO LEAKAGE



    RECLAMATOR is the pretreatment technology which is required to be applied at all point sources of discharges so as to prevent/eliminate creating of allowing a non-point source of discharge from occurring such as turning a point source via a regulatory permit of a building’s sewer pipe into a non-point source of pollution discharging it into either a drain field or a sewer collection system.



    This is the main purpose and intent of USC Title 33 Chapter 26, to eliminate BOTH from occurring through requiring “pretreatment” technology at each sewer pipe coming from each building built since December 27, 1977. Yep, that’s right. Every building permit that has been issued since December 27, 1977 that did not require a “pretreatment” technology application at such source of discharge (property) has been a blatant violation of the Nation’s #1 Water Law. Who allowed it to happen? The US EPA (and all state and local authorities under them) who was commissioned and mandated by US Congress in 1972 to administer this water law via USC 33/26 Sec. 1251(d).



    All sources (buildings and properties as new sources since 1977) of domestic waste streams (sewage), the source of toxic pollutants (a primary one listed on the EPA Toxic Pollutant List, “Nitrosamines”), are required to meet “pretreatment requirements” and have been since 1977. (USC 33/26/1317(c))



    What does this mean? It means an area-wide waste management planning (as defined in USC 33/26/1288(b)), such as the County sewer process, “shall contain alternatives for waste treatment management”, i.e. pretreatment alternatives provided they will be discharging into a publicly owned treatment works.



    Alternative means “alternative to a conventional method of collection” and “alternative to a publicly owned treatment works”. NOTE: “Alternative” DOES NOT apply to any public or private treatment works that would be used to provide a publicly owned treatment works or used in a publicly owned right of way.



    Pretreatment means “an alternative” that discharges into a “publicly owned treatment works”.



    Today, 35 years since its becoming law, the best available “pretreatment” technology eliminates the discharge of pollutants and produces “harvest water” which complies with the EPA treated drinking water quality standard. Harvest water is a valuable resource. Harvest water does not require a publicly owned treatment works. As a matter of fact, if harvest water was required to be discharged into a publicly owned treatment works, it would have to be purchased by the public entity, unless of course, there was a mutual agreement to provide such public entity such harvest water. This IS NOT the case in Los Osos as the owner of the RECLAMATOR, AES Discharge Elimination Services, has no desire to give its water away without fare market value being paid for it. Furthermore, the publicly entity cannot legally assess the public to pay for such collection system as there is no justification for such an antiquated method of waste management to be applied in this 21st Century.



    So, this leaves only one option to have a publicly owned treatment works consisting of a method of conventional collection. A group of citizens can opt to pay for it, but they must still have to provide “PRETREATMENT” at their home consisting of the best available demonstrated control technology currently available economically achievable, i.e. the “RECLAMATOR”. But, why would anyone in their right mind want to 1) pay to have their harvest water taken away, or 2) go back to “1”.

    By Blogger Mark, at 9:26 PM, February 03, 2008  

  • Simple question mark, that even a grade schooler would ask, how do you prove it works without data?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 9:04 AM, February 04, 2008  

  • Mark said > Simply put: Data is not a requirement for the best available technology
    > to be “required”. What IS required, even without ANY data, is that the best
    > “practicable” (practicable means possible) control (control means treatment)
    > pretreatment alternative (which mean onsite control technology) be applied
    > at each source (which means building) prior to discharging into a publicly owned
    > treatment works (which means such as a County collection system).
    > It isn’t about “data”, it is about best practicable demonstrated control pretreatment
    > technology economically achievable.


    Thank you Mark. See, that wasn't so difficult was it? I gotta say, this is the most comprehensible comment of yours I have read in some time. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it but it does help to clarify what is to me a surprising lack of performance data submitted during this process.

    > Please indentify (or put up) the statute you are using which supports the need for "data" you are seeking. If there is one, I am interested in seeing it.

    I don't recall ever saying I was basing my desire to see data (evidence of product performance) was based upon a statute. I'm a citizen who wanted to know whether and how well your product works. As previously noted I am a proponent of on-site treatment strategies. Especially when they can be proven to work better than other options. I'm a simple citizen. I Don't necessarily believe good new technology will always win over century-old often-failing technology - there is more to the game than actual performance - but I think proven performance is a good place to start. And I was hoping your product could be proven on its own merits to be the obvious best option. (sigh) Silly me.

    With so many previously installed AES treatment facilities listed in the Reclamator Certified Engineering Report I was hoping there would be some data to show the effectiveness of the product. In the fAQ of that report it says:

    > Does your company have proven installations?
    > Yes, Advanced Environmental Systems has installed treatment plants
    > in the United States, Mexico and the Far East. For more information
    > see Section 8, "Selected Installations."


    I've looked for Section 8 and this data but have been unable to find it. Does it exist? And is it published?

    Thanks.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 9:24 AM, February 04, 2008  

  • 13:
    The installation list is moved to section 13.

    By Blogger Mark, at 10:30 AM, February 04, 2008  

  • 13 wrote: I'm a simple citizen. I Don't necessarily believe good new technology will always win over century-old often-failing technology - there is more to the game than actual performance - but I think proven performance is a good place to start. And I was hoping your product could be proven on its own merits to be the obvious best option. (sigh) Silly me.

    13: When it comes to the public health and welfare, it is about compliance with the law that was written to protect the citizens.

    It's not a game and it's not about winning. It is about compliance with the law.

    By Blogger Mark, at 10:50 AM, February 04, 2008  

  • "It's not a game and it's not about winning. It is about compliance with the law."

    Not as I see it, It's about winning a lawsuit to define a law.

    Pony up Mark, yibidy yee haw!

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 8:46 PM, February 04, 2008  

  • I'm glad you see it that way, stay tuned Green.

    By Blogger Mark, at 9:39 PM, February 04, 2008  

  • I wouldn't be too glad if I were you!
    A Loooooong row to hoe.

    You need to get an injunction asap.

    the county process is on a roll, with published timelines. the CDO/CAOs have a date with fate.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 10:12 PM, February 04, 2008  

  • I think this is now an old past thread. Sorry, just gotta say this ....

    Mark said > 13: When it comes to the public health and welfare, it is about compliance with the law that was written to protect the citizens. It's not a game and it's not about winning. It is about compliance with the law.

    Oh, gag me with that spoon again. Dude, we're not the idots you think we are. As I said. I'm a simple citizen. Despite your claims this is not a game, that it is not about winning, and that it is all about compliance with the law it sure seems to me this is a game that has run amok. Of course the same could said about what has long passed before you and AES entered stage left aspiring to save the day. You guys are just more of the same. That's not to say you are wrong. The cast of this never ending drama - nee comedy - nee tragedy - are all well meaning in their own minds and for their own purposes. But when does it end? Please try to appreciate you are only the latest act in an overly long stage play. So you gotta expect a short hook. You are playing the by-the-letter-of-the-law angle in a game of make-up-the-rules-as-we-go monte. Sorry, while you are parsing the letter of the law your own economic self interest is being blatantly exposed. That's not to say that whoever cuts this Gordian knot doesn't deserve some reward. But not, again, at our expense. I would think if your technology is as good as you claim it is it should be presented as a technological break through. Present the facts and let them stand. Read: Data. You should not have to play the, public health and welfare compliance with the law angle. That's so lame. And it's not going to gain you popular support. Nor win the field. Simply put, win the hearts and minds of the citizens (and the county gov) with proof of your product and you just may 'win' this game. But you seem to want to win this game on legal technocalities rather than legitimate and provable fact. We've got a real sewage problem and an even greater fresh water delimma. We absolutely need a real solution. Not a by-the-rules shimmy and still more cost to the PZ and the citizens of greater Los Osos. Based on what little I can discern about your product it should be able to stand on its own merits. Please let it do so. Please present it as a new technological solution to a challenging problem. Rather than a slimmy public health and welfare compliance legal ploy.

    Oh, I'm sure your legal counsel is telling you this is the way to attack this opportunity. And I daresay they're probably correct. But only from your/their perspective. Not from ours. You can burn these fields, learn form the experience, and move on to your next opportunity. You lose, our loss. That's biz. Uh, did I say we've got a real sewage problem and an even greater fresh water delimma. We've got a crisis. We don't need carpetbaggers. Either present a legitimate solution to our problem or move on to your next business opportunity.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 11:46 PM, February 04, 2008  

  • 13-
    Are you an ex-valley girl? The reference to "Oh, gag me with that (cocaine) spoon again. Dude" has me wondering..
    I know I have referred to you previously as a gentleman but now I am not so sure...gentlewoman?

    That aside, it seems you have lost any real or clear perspective about what is really happening. The LOSTDEP is no game. If you treat it like a game you'll get played.
    Dull knives cause injury, sharp ones get the job done. Keeping the edge is the only way one can work all day long, trust me on this. Of course water jets are used in some instances, pesky technology...

    I am sorry to see that public health and safety aren't really that important to you, so I am glad to know there are laws to keep things real. Otherwise any "citizen" or government agency could do whatever they/it wanted without consequences. I know it's been a long show for the people, but hold on a minute, we are about to "cut to the chase"...

    If you don't see changes in the status quo brought on by the RECLAMATOR and the US Code that supports and encourages its promulgation and use, perhaps an excerpt from a recent letter from Dan Blesky which appeared in the Feb/Mar issue of THE ROCK on page 12 Stickin' it to the PZ is in order.

    You, and everyone in the United States who is staring down the barrel of a political sub-division's consulting engineer's business model (leaking non-compliant ~P~I~P~E~), ought to read every word and be sure not to miss "Missing- Final Legal Seal of Approval.

    Here's that taste I promised:
    Subject: Dan Blesky speaks out on THE ROCK

    After just receiving the Feb/March issue of the ROCK and reading it cover to cover I wanted to find out if you have had a chance to see it yet.

    What a treasure trove of material! Especially interesting is the Dan Blesky Letter on page 12.

    "What my experience in Los Osos has taught me was that the "profession" that I had so much faith in has a very dark side, one that has shaken me and caused me to refocus my life but on a similar note has allowed me to see that there are scientists and engineers out there who really get what is going on."

    RECLAMATOR to the RESCUE...
    I thought I would send along a few links for your consideration:
    -A little too busy to play with the hot links right now, sorry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Osos

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclamator
    This is the only thing standing between the citizens of Los Osos from being taken advantage of by the State the County's consulting Engineer

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carollo_engineers


    13, In the War of Water, "Battle of Los Osos", one correct move will make the difference, for thousands perhaps millions of American citizens! No joke.

    By Blogger Mark, at 7:57 AM, February 05, 2008  

  • Mark said > 13, You are a real gentlemen. I appreciate the encoding lesson and will put it to work asap.
    >
    > 13 - Are you an ex-valley girl? The reference to "Oh, gag me with that (cocaine) spoon again. Dude" has me wondering..


    I was hoping for so much more. Teach a fool a new trick and .... he's still just a fool with another new trick. (sigh)

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 3:06 PM, February 05, 2008  

  • You didn't answer the question... Madame or sir? Or ??

    By Blogger Mark, at 4:35 PM, February 05, 2008  

  • Why does "Madame or sir" matter so much to you mark?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:41 AM, February 06, 2008  

  • The links to the State or County DATA/Proof of the leaking asewerage and treatment works performance and "spillage" matters more.

    But since you ask, you know who I am and I respect toons because she has user information posted and you do not.

    It will level the playing field somewhen you call me rude or un mannerly, when I believe thatI am not.

    Sometimes you write like a woman and other times not.

    Perhaps a better question might be why are you afraid to have your identity known?

    As the signs say: This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

    So if you don't want toreveal who you are would you reveal if you are from Marsor Venus?

    By Blogger Mark, at 1:18 PM, February 06, 2008  

  • I can't believe I'm even responding. Some things don't deserve a response.

    Mark > 13 - Are you an ex-valley girl?

    And that explains the coke spoon reference?

    > You didn't answer the question... Madame or sir? Or??
    > Sometimes you write like a woman and other times not.
    > Perhaps a better question might be why are you afraid to have your identity known?
    > As the signs say: This blog does not allow anonymous comments.


    Mark. If you wish to continue playing in the blogosphere: grow up, buy a brain, and get a life. You might also set aside a few evenings to learn:

    + How to embed links to the important information you want to share. The lesson I provided you is the simplest and most basic HTML coding. To call it Lesson 1 is seriously inflating its importance. As you so clearly proved. Your grade: C-. Your first link was broken. (Un-tested.) Your next link was good. (I was hopeful.) And then you wasted your newly learned skills on that spurious cocaine link? (This is why teachers drink.)

    + The fundamental nature of blog communications. It's a great medium. With extraordinary upsides and downsides. A lot of really cool stuff can be shared/exchanged/discussed/argued. But too much inane babbling and posting turns people off. (Hint: see previous hints.) If you've got a lot to say and a major side to take then consider authoring your own blog instead of hijacking another's blog for your own purposes. (See: How to start a blog.) You can then post short posts to Ann's, Ron's and any other blogs and link off to yours. If others find your blog compelling they will become part of your community. Until then please know you, me and all the rest of us are symbiotic guests on Ann's and Ron's and all the other's blogs. That's not a put-down to you, me or anybody else. That's just the way it is. We enjoy each other - using the term 'enjoy' most lightly - until we become burdensome to the community. I pray I am not becomming that just now. (sigh) And there it is. A bore is a bore is a bore - no matter their intentions. Mea culpa.

    And Lastly.

    > Madame or sir? Or??
    > Sometimes you write like a woman and other times not.


    And that is important how? I think I will opt for Or?? Does that disappoint you? Or excite you? Oh Gawd, please, please, don't answer that. That's one of those terribly weird rhetorical questions nobody wants or needs to know. Just let us imagine ;-P

    And no I am most certainly NOT anonymous. I am *PG-13! I am what I am. (See ALL previous comments! I believe you all know me as such.) I am registered as *PG-13. This is me on this (and other) blogs. And you, Mark , provide the perfect reason for why posters use tags. Get real! Sometimes you write like a woman and other times not. (sigh) Uh, should I call the police?

    Dude, gives us a big grin and sit on that spoon!

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 10:39 PM, February 06, 2008  

  • Mark. If you wish to continue playing in the blogosphere: grow up, buy a brain, and get a life.

    Dude, gives us a big grin and sit on that spoon!

    Mark says-So mannerly and informative.

    And no I am most certainly NOT anonymous. I am *PG-13! I am what I am.

    (sigh) Uh, should I call the police?

    Appears you afraid of losing credibilty you may think you have if your real identity is revealed?

    Blog on..
    Oh I'm still waiting for that grade on the RECLAMATOR Engineering Submittal and the information/data/proof that any county or state agncey has provided for the LOSTDEP.

    As you are so inquisitve of the RECLAMATOR it would be "odd" if you were not at least as curios about what the county is studying.

    The result of which will be a difficult one for most in the LOSTDEP to take. Think:"Dude, gives us a big grin and sit on that spoon!", here.

    By Blogger Mark, at 8:14 AM, February 07, 2008  

  • *pg-13 wrote:

    "If you've got a lot to say and a major side to take then consider authoring your own blog instead of hijacking another's blog for your own purposes."

    Well put.

    Blogs are free, after all (wink, wink to all the creepy people behind Shark Inlet, Inc. -- that way your one(s) [I added the "(s)" just in case there is more than one] of supporter(s) could stop by your blog to read... well... whatever it is that you creepy, anonymous people write.)

    Mark, you guys could/should start reclamator.blogspot.com, because every time you post something in the comments section of my blog, it gets e-mailed to me, and it's jamming up my in box.

    PG, thanks for doing that link "lesson." That was awesome.

    Finally, why, oh WHY, didn't I pick the goddamn upset? I knew it. I had a gut feeling. It was that damn 12-point spread. It's hard pick against that, straight-up. Vegas odds-makers are usually freaky good. I've seen them pick college basketball teams by 40-plus points, and they'll nail it!

    By Blogger Ron, at 8:58 AM, February 07, 2008  

  • Ron,

    I did not know that the comments were emailed,sorry for the junk email.

    One thing I don't need now is more mail...

    Thank you for your suggestions and I'll work on them when I have time. First things first in the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. It seems the need for info from the bloggers and bloggettes may be satiated at this time. If not, I will encouarge "bold" action and offer my address and phone again.
    Mark@NOwastewater.com / 480.363.1154 for those who wish to stay off the record. Thanks for all your patience thus far!

    We'll be making some news shortly.

    By Blogger Mark, at 12:07 PM, February 07, 2008  

  • Mark, I submit this comment as somebody who really does care. About these blog communities, their authors and the content published on them. So please don't think this an attack or an insult or - heaven forbid - more of the same. It really is meant as constructive guidance.

    Mark > I did not know that the comments were emailed,sorry for the junk email.

    See, you muck about in an environment you have not yet bothered to learn about. That's cool. We all started somewhere. Most of us pretty close to where you are now. But if you are serious about using this medium as a means to hustle your favorite topic then please do make an effort to become a little more conversant with the tool and the declared (and un-declared) protocols of the various blogs you may choose to participate in. They're all different but most of them - the good ones in my estimation - have buy-in's of one sort or another. And its appropriate to recognize and support these buy-ins. The lines aren't tight and the blog owners are usually very forgiving for the first one or two dozen breeches. I mean, at one time or another pretty much everyone wails on the author and yet they continue to post their blog. And allow us to continue wailing. Personally, I think there is a PhD. - if not a bestseller - in the study and analysis of the psychology of blog authors. Aberrant? Yes. Sick? Maybe. Interesting? Certainly.

    And. I just can't help myself. ;-)

    > ... sorry for the junk email.

    You do realize you just categorized your many comments as JUNK MAIL ?

    Mark > Thank you for your suggestions (regarding starting my own blog) and I'll work on them when I have time.

    You've said exactly that before. Let me help you. Much like embedding links its easier than you probably imagine. Starting the blog is the easy part. As easy as falling off a log. Really. Maintaining a blog is the challenging part. That means you've got to keep coming up with engaging blog content. And dealing with the riff-raff who will no doubt try your patience. Still, if you believe strongly in your topic (and I think you really do) it is the obvious - and necessary - next step. So let's get started. The process is quick (5 minutes max). And easy. You'll be posting your own blog in less than 10 minutes. Assuming you have something to say.

    1. In the upper right corner of this blog there is probably a Create Blog link. Click it. And follow the steps:

    (1) Create a Google Account: Thanks to your previous commitment to Ann and Ron's blogs you already have an account or you wouldn't be able to comment 'anonymously'. See how much you've learned already?

    (2) Name a blog: Choose your blog name. Uh......?

    (3) Choose a template: Dang, you don't even have to code your own page. They provide lots of cool templates. You need never know how difficult that is. Try 'em all until you find one you like.

    (4) And now, to quote you, Blog Away: That can't possibly be a challenge can it?.

    Good Luck. I'm looking forward to your next comment. Maybe something like: I have great new news about the LOSTDEP Reclamator Solution. Read all about it at my new blog here

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 8:28 PM, February 07, 2008  

  • See, you muck about in an environment you have not yet bothered to learn about.

    Like you and water repurification technology and the law?

    You do realize you just categorized your many comments as JUNK MAIL ? Like this one...

    Otherwise, I appreciate your taking time to walk us all through the create a blog lesson, really.

    I would have more respect for your comments in general if you had the integrity to use your own identity.
    Seem so "cowardly" not to, but that's just my opinion. Blog on/Blog off...the Blogger.

    By Blogger Mark, at 10:07 PM, February 07, 2008  

  • Ron,

    You need a little lesson on how vegas odds-makers set point spreads for football.

    They are more trying to get the bets to balance out evenly on both sides than anything else. That being said, they are trying to cater to public opinion more than trying to give an honest impression of what the likely outcome is.

    Because Notre Dame have a lot of fans, they often get more money on the Irish than would be reasonable for a fair point spread ... to balance out the betting money the oddsmakers will give more points to the team playing ND to encourage bets on the other side. The end result, ND is favored by more than they ought to be (until this year).

    By the time the playoffs hit, folks had caught Pats fever and had completely forgotten the Ravens game where NE was lucky to come away with a win ... the point spread ... like for ND ... favored NE far more than it should have.


    Speaking of creepy ... what compels you to be so dismissive of what I write (by claiming you don't read it and by never ever ever actually addressing any of the points I raise or the questions I ask) all the while being so quick to make uncalled-for snarky and rather judgmental comments?

    The only folks I know in real life who do that sort of thing are deeply damaged people who have an inability to admit they are wrong, mostly because they have their self-worth tied up in being right all the time.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 10:53 PM, February 07, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home