Pedro. ?
#161070
02/07/04 10:22 AM
02/07/04 10:22 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,729 Illinois, Arkansas,South Dakot...
bywarren
OP
.
|
OP
|
I noticed, Pedro, that you have had recent differences of opinion with people that you suggest might have an obesity problem. In case I run into that, or have run into that, could you please give me some advice. I notice that some people talk about things like barns on fire. I know there are sayings that have to do with "if the shoe fits" or is it if the pants don't, that might be of help to me in broading my vocabulary and making bigger points. Any advice you could give would be largely appreciated. Big thanks in advance. PS: now don't any of you think that this refers to anyone in particular. I could be walking the streets of San Pedro and bump into someone, some of the streets are narrow, and would not even know who they are. :p
|
|
|
Re: Pedro. ?
#161072
02/07/04 10:59 AM
02/07/04 10:59 AM
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,336 oklahoma
toad
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Pedro. ?
#161075
02/08/04 12:52 PM
02/08/04 12:52 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,729 Illinois, Arkansas,South Dakot...
bywarren
OP
.
|
OP
|
OK, maybe it is time to move on before this deteriorates or gets any darker. If any of you are interested and want to take the time to look at what transpired here, I think it is a good example of how topics on this board can move away from issues and become personal. If you go back and read the start of this under “guide training for Goff’s Caye”, I think you will see how an “issue” got started being discussed. My interpretation is that the issue and the opposing views were being debated and then topic turned away from the issue. The first of this is when I referred to the statement “ANYTHING is better than nothing, even if its done backwards according to North American standards” as being irresponsible and shallow thinking and proceeded to give my reasoning. I feel that commenting on a persons words is entirely acceptable. My response was followed with “Wha wha wha, it’s easier to complain and criticize than to get involved in change. Oh, btw, that last comment was directed right at you By warren, in case I wasnt clear enough”. I would have thought the proper response would have been to further attempt to explain her position, i.e. give it more weight, whoops a slip of the tongue, as opposed describing me as complaining. I then gave some more of my reasoning on my thinking only to be told “Enlighten us Bywarren on how you are involved, other than complaining”. There were some light hearted comments and then a diatribe on how she retired younger than me and how old my socks were, although she came here and started a business and that does not meet my definition of retired, and a bio on her involvement along with a short history lesson on Caye Caulker. She also mentioned Steve Schulte as being president of BTIA and living in San Pedro. I did not understand the purpose of that comment unless she was trying to infer that I should talk with Steve which I found to be hilarious as Steve was taking a break from work at the time and, with me, doing some diving and fishing as the guest of another BTIA board member. We were discussing the cruise issue along with other issues effecting Belize. It seems to me that if we all had to meet her criteria of being “involved”, many on this board would not be allowed to have an opinion, unless maybe it was in agreement with hers. I then decided since we were no longer on the issue of the cruise ships I would quit trying to have a serious discussion and try to have some fun with the Pedro.? topic as I had seen a similar direction that some other topics had taken. Now in the past I have passionatly expressed my views. Some have taken that to be “critical and mean spirited”. I feel it is just spirited debate. There have been references to things like “barns being on fire” etc. Maybe we should keep in mind that saying that starts out “sticks and stones”. Anyway, if any of you took the time to read this you must have as much idle time on your hands as I do. PS: don’t any of you stop taking shots at me if you are so inclined. I can assure you it won’t “break my bones”. Just be ready for some possible return fire. 
|
|
|
Re: Pedro. ?
#161076
02/12/04 10:49 PM
02/12/04 10:49 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14 London, Ontario, Canada.
Crow44
|
|
This is good... I love experiencing knowledge and opinions, tactics and ad-lib pontifications, even in the limbo of cyberspace. I also like to contribute. If this is turning into a public opinion poll, then Silky should be present for the debate. But I'm just as happy if she doesn't wanna. I believe she has turned from Mother Nature and she may not be aware of how much. (now I'm gonna get it.) I've read of a Walmart on the border, internet in the cafe's, and Marty's up to date exclusives on cruise ship waste disposal practices and pro-enviromental views. Unfortunately it doesn't look good. I can only hope my Grandsons have the same opportunities as I have.(probably 2050 A.D) ByWarren is on track as far I can deduce. The amount of damage tourism causes to Belize correlates directly to the amount of traffic through its undisturbed surroundings. Kinda' ironic, kinda' sad. Once Capitalism and Greed have taken hold, they're tough to shake. Any economic growth through tourism is paid for by the natural resources and the culture of the Mayans, natives.
|
|
|
Re: Pedro. ?
#161077
02/13/04 06:27 AM
02/13/04 06:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,675 The Buckeye State, USA
dbdoberman
.
|
|
I think the point that Silk was trying to make at the beginning was that at least an attempt was being made, however feeble, to start doing something about the impact of cruisers on the environment. That maybe the government was starting to realize the fact that by saying yes to the cruise ship economy was saying no to the environment. Is it a sincere attempt, or just a smooth move? I don't know. The deals are already done, the greed factor won, and perhaps it is now that somebody is waking up to the fact of what it all means, the continued damage to the enviroment, with no real means in place to monitor the whole situation. It appears to be a very small step, not the major one that should be made, but perhaps it could lead to a bigger step -- again, if this is a sincere attempt. There really aren't too many caribbean tourist destinations left who have said "NO" to the cruise economy, so it is no surprise that Belize didn't either. The greed starts with the cruise ship industry, many based in the USA. If somebody really wanted to do something, one thing they could do is write to legislators in the US, and support those organizations who have, for years, tried to bring attention to the negative impact of cruise ships, the criminal actions that go unmonitored, the relatively small fines imposed when a ship is busted, etc. I agree that a larger fee should be collected per person, with all the money committed to programs to lessen the impact, instead of the pockets of a few. The industry has grown out of control due to increased demand. They are giving people what they want, afterall. That will always be the rub. The only way to really stop it all is to reach the people who choose cruises, to make them understand that by doing so, they are supporting an industry that is raping our environment. Do you really ever see that happening?
|
|
|
Re: Pedro. ?
#161079
02/13/04 11:58 AM
02/13/04 11:58 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,251
NYgal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
80
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums44
Topics77,648
Posts496,515
Members20,197
|
Most Online7,413 Nov 7th, 2021
|
|
|