Stumpy

On one hand I LOVE this - fair play to the guy. On the other hand I think: shit - now banks will have an excuse to put their charges up because of all the extra people they will have to employ to re-read and check all the contracts coming back. But still - I think on the whole I love it. Never try to eat more than you can lift

What - "Starbucks" and "Coffee"? Never try to eat more than you can lift

Where? got a link? It's linked from the article in the OP. http://ae3b703522cf9ac6c40a-32964bea949fe02d45161cf7095bfea9.r89.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/211/626/pg-settlement-hearing-transcript.pdf Those are the transcripts from just before the judge approved the settlement. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/confidential-agreement-should-have-been-part-of-washington-county-marcellus-shale-case-record-697530/#ixzz2bQzxgJ5Q This is the original Pennsylvania paper that the OP article is going off of. There is nowhere in the transcript where they say they suffered no effects - just the opposite in fact. And from the original article "They said air and water contaminants caused them to experience burning eyes, sore throats, headaches and earaches, and contaminated their water supply." and *** Mr. Pitzarella emphasized the company's denial that its drilling operations caused any harm to the health of the Hallowichs. "All of the reports done at the time indicated no exposure [from the gas development] and they never produced evidence of any health impacts," Mr. Pitzarella said. "We did say that clearly the Hallowichs were not in an ideal situation in terms of their lifestyle. They had an unusual amount of activity around them. We didn't want them in that situation." He noted that as part of the settlement agreement, they willingly signed a document that stated the family's health was not affected by the gas operations. Mr. Villari said that the settlement "would not have gone forward" if the Hallowichs refused to sign the document. "The defendants required certain language. It was insisted upon," he said." OK so imagine the situation - we will pay you to move house and cover all your expenses to make your kids safe if you will sign this document. Hmmm. "Under duress" springs to mind. I don't think for 1 second that the motive of the gas company was anything other than making a problem go away. Never try to eat more than you can lift

If you are talking about in my thread... you didn't say jack shit about this. Additionally... However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. Just as pointless of an article as in my thread. That would be a good result. Unfortunately the lawyer previously said "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it,". Hopefully the kids can forget about it and move on making the question moot. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Where? got a link? Never try to eat more than you can lift

There was no effect, yet they gave them 3/4 of a million dollars and got a gag order? The fracking isn't affecting me either - can I get the same? Never try to eat more than you can lift

There you go, injecting facts into the discussion again damn you! Never try to eat more than you can lift

Really, you don't believe that it could be a combination of the two? Some inherent understanding with some parental guidance? Never try to eat more than you can lift

Disagree, as i suspect does most of the western world outside the US (although would be interested to know if anyone polls that and fine to be proven wrong.) But thats ok, we are all entitled to our opinions. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Duh. They are politicians Did they start a war over it? No - I don't think much of any presidents/politicians generally. (Hate is too strong a word) However, Bush from an external perspective was one of the worst. I appreciate that from a domestic viewpoint you may have a different opinion. In two of the countries I have lived in, I would generally be seen to sit a bit to the right of centre. In the US, with exactly the same viewpoints I come down on the left. SOme of the republican principles I agree with, however the far right and especially the walking freakshow that is the tea party turn me off (yet keep me strangely entertained at election time!). Anyway, I digress. Never try to eat more than you can lift

I see what you did there Never try to eat more than you can lift

Sure - clinton lied as well (wouldn't have been the first time.) But let me spell this out for you as it's obviously a bit complex. Bush went to war with Iraq - True On the basis of a lie - True Please point out which of the above two statements is incorrect? Never try to eat more than you can lift

Where in any of that does that contradict what I said? No? Thought not. Nice attempt at diversion though, seems to be your speciality Never try to eat more than you can lift

this starts your post out as a lie Ahhh denial is a wonderful thing for the likes of you. Never try to eat more than you can lift

I like this line: "I would not recommend for beginner riders" That applies as stock, let alone this monster! Never try to eat more than you can lift

OK - Bush started a pretty big war on the basis of a lie. Thats a pretty unforgivable one. Especially considering he dragged in a number of other countries with the same lie. Everything else you say is arguable and depends a lot on your partisan leanings. The only thing from my point of view that has a similar potential impact is the stuff going on at the moment from an NSA or (insert other countries intelligence agency here) point of view with regards to privacy. However, quite rightly in both of my "home" countries that is seen more as a domestic issue than involving the US. Obama is complicit but it is the domestic politicians driving their own agendas. Never try to eat more than you can lift

From an external perspective, Obama doesn't get close to how bad Bush was. It's all opinion. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Meh, replace "Obama" with "any President" and you would also be right. Obama, or his successor, or his predecessor, could have cured cancer and the opposition would still spin that into a bad thing. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Yeah good job the killers couldn't get hold of a decent gun, otherwise there might have been a lot more deaths. Nope, they were specifically targeting military. There were civilians present who were unharmed. Plus I'm sure they wanted to make a statement. A gun would not have been their choice. Apart from the fact they had one, you are entirely correct! (it was old and rusty - they probably couldnt get hold of anything better.) So - wrong. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Yeah good job the killers couldn't get hold of a decent gun, otherwise there might have been a lot more deaths. Never try to eat more than you can lift

"Careful you idiot! I said across his nose, not up it!" "Sorry Sir... I'm doing my best." Gone to plaid Never try to eat more than you can lift

Really? You are picking holes in the realism of a hollywood plot?! 2 Words for you: Point Break Never try to eat more than you can lift

How about Top Gun? Tarantino probably said it best. Never try to eat more than you can lift

Wow - really? You would LIKE Kallend to shoot someone? Thats fucked up. Never try to eat more than you can lift

If you say so, not really familiar with CNN, but will take your word for it as you are DEFINITELY right about Piers Morgan The problem only comes when people actually listen to these channels and/or repost them here as objective reporting. Never try to eat more than you can lift