Disappointment - Cont'd

[jwh]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

See I get very amused at all the indignace about false info. I exposed a bunch of it at the outset during the BB fiasco. However when the site suited certain people that false info was overlooked. Now when the site does not suit you, you get all up in arms over more false info.

They have a term for people like that.........

This actually got me thinking in different terms.

I seem to recall someone on here worried about county budget cuts because of the potential resulting rise in crime and safety problems around the county due to not spending the money on the proper preventative measures. Now, it's OK to not spend the money because potential safety concerns are just fear mongering.

I still voted for the tax increase just in case the state F*d it all up.. hoping there would be a fallback.

Well, then that's just sad. What's the "fallback"? Vote for a tax increase when there is no REASON for it. Do you think they would ever propose to reduce it, if not needed?

[Arch]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

This actually got me thinking in different terms.

I seem to recall someone on here worried about county budget cuts because of the potential resulting rise in crime and safety problems around the county due to not spending the money on the proper preventative measures. Now, it's OK to not spend the money because potential safety concerns are just fear mongering.

I still voted for the tax increase just in case the state F*d it all up.. hoping there would be a fallback.

Well, then that's just sad. What's the "fallback"? Vote for a tax increase when there is no REASON for it. Do you think they would ever propose to reduce it, if not needed?

They could always have chosen increase funding for other needed programs.

Yes, helping the common good is just 'sad' isn't it?

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

jwh said:

Well, then that's just sad. What's the "fallback"? Vote for a tax increase when there is no REASON for it. Do you think they would ever propose to reduce it, if not needed?

They could always have chosen increase funding for other needed programs.

Yes, helping the common good is just 'sad' isn't it?

You are right arch.
the If the programs were reduced at the County and it took longer for the criminals to be caught, and or put in jail. the probablility that crime would rise - 100%
The probability that there would be an event with the pipes - .00000001%

Thank you BTW for still voting yes, I did too even though I knew I did not have to.

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

They could always have chosen increase funding for other needed programs.

Yes, helping the common good is just 'sad' isn't it?

You are right arch.
the If the programs were reduced at the County and it took longer for the criminals to be caught, and or put in jail. the probablility that crime would rise - 100%
The probability that there would be an event with the pipes - .00000001%

Thank you BTW for still voting yes, I did too even though I knew I did not have to.

First off, you're welcome.

Secondly, what math formula are you using here and are you taking into account the age of the pipes on a go-forward basis along with the type of cathodic system they are using on the pipes currently? Also, what is the likelihood of heavy machinery that will be used on the site to build the school of compressing the dirt enough to shift things around underground and weaken them?

I'm curious how you came up with your number.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

You are right arch.
the If the programs were reduced at the County and it took longer for the criminals to be caught, and or put in jail. the probablility that crime would rise - 100%
The probability that there would be an event with the pipes - .00000001%

Thank you BTW for still voting yes, I did too even though I knew I did not have to.

First off, you're welcome.

Secondly, what math formula are you using here and are you taking into account the age of the pipes on a go-forward basis along with the type of cathodic system they are using on the pipes currently? Also, what is the likelihood of heavy machinery that will be used on the site to build the school of compressing the dirt enough to shift things around underground and weaken them?

I'm curious how you came up with your number.

Pulled it out of my butt...Do you have a better probability number?
Wait...I asked you that before...you never came up with one....

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

First off, you're welcome.

Secondly, what math formula are you using here and are you taking into account the age of the pipes on a go-forward basis along with the type of cathodic system they are using on the pipes currently? Also, what is the likelihood of heavy machinery that will be used on the site to build the school of compressing the dirt enough to shift things around underground and weaken them?

I'm curious how you came up with your number.

Pulled it out of my butt...Do you have a better probability number?
Wait...I asked you that before...you never came up with one....

I chose to give no number rather than a BS made up number... I did put forth some things we can work with though and that is if a site does not have a hazard that it has a less chance of having a problem with the non-existent hazard than a site that does have said hazard.

The gas industry itself can not compute when a pipe will fail.

[wvhsparent]

right...IMHO no number is as much BS as mine is......

[rew]

I agree with Arch.

The probability of being in a plane crash is small. Unfortunately though, if you're in a plane crash, your chance of dying are high.


If you travel by car, your probability of being involved in a car accident is pretty high. Fortunately your chance of surviving an accident are pretty good.

Lots of people are afraid of flying and therefore don't, but not that many are afraid of riding in a car.

It's not always the probability of the event that presents a risk, it's also the outcome of the event.

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

right...IMHO no number is as much BS as mine is......

So because something isn't a certain, it's BS?

That's almost comical.

I'm going to crunch some numbers anyway though because I may have found what I was looking for. ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm

You can start your calculations too if you want to refute anything later.

[wvhsparent]

archwinsome said:

wvhsparent said:

right...IMHO no number is as much BS as mine is......

So because something isn't a certain, it's BS?

That's almost comical.

I'm going to crunch some numbers anyway though because I may have found what I was looking for. ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm

You can start your calculations too if you want to refute anything later.

That does look kewl.
I will review more later too.

[wvhsparent]

rew said:

I agree with Arch.

The probability of being in a plane crash is small. Unfortunately though, if you're in a plane crash, your chance of dying are high.


If you travel by car, your probability of being involved in a car accident is pretty high. Fortunately your chance of surviving an accident are pretty good.

Lots of people are afraid of flying and therefore don't, but not that many are afraid of riding in a car.

It's not always the probability of the event that presents a risk, it's also the outcome of the event.

Excellent analogy rew.
But also remember that air travel is considered one of the safest ways to travel.
Also more people are killed in car crashes than plane crashes.

[Arch]

wvhsparent said:

archwinsome said:

So because something isn't a certain, it's BS?

That's almost comical.

I'm going to crunch some numbers anyway though because I may have found what I was looking for. ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm

You can start your calculations too if you want to refute anything later.

That does look kewl.
I will review more later too.

Even better: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/psi.html

Broken out just like the electricity generation/fuel consumption reports that turned out to show our Administration was not playing with a 'proper' deck at the Jan 22 meeting.

[Arch]

primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/IncList_IL.html#_all

Note the material failure and corrosion causes...

It happens... Putting a school where we know these are in quantities it just plain reckless. IMO.

[rj]

Also, what is the likelihood of heavy machinery that will be used on the site to build the school of compressing the dirt enough to shift things around underground and weaken them?

The pipelines are under a right of way by the tracks, not on the property the school would be built on. This is done by design so nothing is ever built over the top of them. That being said, there is no reason for heavy equipment used in the building of the school to be near the right of way.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

lacy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I agree with WVHSparent. Everyone needs to figure out what is the biggest priority and come to support them. I know if I was the school board, they have to realize this proposal is not the best. And if people that were not affected by the boundary change came out and supported Watts/Owen/Gombert/Petersen etc. than that would really make me stop and think. If we do this logically and rationally, then maybe the board will table things on Tuesday to examine. If there are altruistic people out there trying to help others, then hey, I have faith in this district. But if people just whine about their situation, they are just going to be labeled as whiners by everyone there. Find a solution. Fry, what IS your solution to becoming walkers? I see the middle school split thing doesn't seem to phase you anymore??? Then find out a REASONABLE ES that you can pull away to make you a walker. Oh, golly, there isn't one. But maybe your middle school split could be managed. Pick a battle that you can win and find a solution that the board will listen to and others will stand behind you on. I'm thinking the folks in WE would support you in the MS split but not be so supportive of you bailing on them to walk to NV. And someone find a solution for poor Petersen and the Watts/Owen mess, as I just can't.

Why do you have sympathy for the commutes of Watts/Owen, but not for Fry?

Why the double standard?

And if the bridge makes Fry walkers - why shouldn't they walk?

Why the double standard?

Lacy, I have sympathy for Fry. I would not want my commute to go from 3 minutes to 30. However, the only solution to your problem is to switch with Welch. Then you are trading your 30 min. commute for Welch's 30 min. commute. Trading with any other ES would give you your 3 minute commute (oh, wait, I guess it would be a 30 minute walk to school over the bridge) but now some other ES has a 40 minute bus ride. It's not like I'm unsympathetic, I just don't see a viable alternative. I don't know why Welch was kept instead of you. That is a question to ask the school board.

With the Owen/Watts people, I see a viable alternative to their long commutes. Switch w/those schools closer to MV.

IMO a switch for Fry means someone else has the same or longer commute. Nothing gets better. A switch up north means someone goes from a 10 minute bus ride to a 20 min bus ride while others go from a 40 min bus ride to a 20 min bus ride. If the distance standard is applied to the south, why is it ignored in the north?