The party for us

But, to all intensive porpoises, we knew what he meant.

 

Delete "intensive porpoises", and insert "intents and purposes".

DON'T MESS WITH A PEDANT !!!

 

One exclamation point is usually considered sufficient.
Three are somewhat redundant, don't you think?

 

Peacefully and dirt bike riders?

Peacefully and 4WDers?

In the same sentences?

Sound like they're their own worse enemies.

 

Spot on. The Mitchell River National Park was created by the
Greens pressuring Bracks into NOT building the Mitchel River
Dam, thus us Vics will pay $5.7 billion for a desal plant, and
$750 million a year for the next 30 years to run/maintain it, meanwhile
the Mitchell river pumps 950 Gigalitres a year into Bass Strait.
And floods Bairnsdale and surrounds every second year...

And then there was the cattle getting kicked out of the Alpine
National Park.. The Greens made Bracks do that too...

 

A bit late for that, I feel. Bairnsdale is quite a sizeable city
http://www.gippslandtourism.com.au/bairnsdale/

Build a dam, save Bairnsdale and surrounds from floods, water can be pumped
to the Thomson dam and thus drought proofs melbourne. But no, the Greens
squeal about the animals habitat. That would be the habitat floating around
the Barracouta oil rig in Bass strait...

 

According to google the Shooters and Fishers currently hold two seats
in the NSW upper house (same as the Greens).

I recall John Tingle (Shooters Party) as an effective politician, and
voice of reason, who retired at the previous election IIRC. David
Leyonhjelm was a significant force behind his original election (hence
my previous comment).

So what's gone wrong... have the forces of evil infiltrated the
Shooters and Fishers?

 

I was more talking about federal elections.

They are one of the more effective minor parties from what I can tell.

Wrong with them? No... the problem is the voting system we have and how
votes are counted.

G-S

 

And the easiest and most sensible solution to fix the problem is a dam.

 

The problem is not the river or the apparent lack of a dam
The problem is the people who move there
The Mitchell River has been there for a long time and a dam is not going to
fix any seasonal flooding.
I am sure that when the area was first settled, they chose a site where it
wouldn't flood, but then, more people came into the town and wanted some of
the scenic area in their backyard, without first asking the locals, if it
flooded at any time

 

Yep, and 4.6 billion dollars cheaper than a desal plant.
I just had a 750kilolitre dam dug last week. It was easy.

Which is what they have to do through lack of a dam...

Moving the city of Bairnsdale will be more costly than the desal plant.
A dam on the mitchell solves several problems. Easy.

 

WITH flood gates.
In these parts we're finding out that a dam without 'em that's already
fullish when the wet starts is nothing but a disaster in waiting.
Hmmm - irrigation for fucken_swamp_crop_cotton. I'm stunned the idiots
aren't trying to grow rice in CQ. Maybe they are?
--
Your childish, witless, stupid and repetitive.
There arent one post on this whole forum that looks like it came from
anyone who has more IQ points than there teeth.

A demented Peter Lucas Impersonator - November 2010 .

 

Yeah - if they can afford high ground.
maybe the ditch approach is the go - if these people 'must' want to live on
a flood plain and do so in slab houses that can act as rafts when things
get nasty. BTW we're almost there with the styrene slab trick - almost at
marina finger construction level.
--
Your childish, witless, stupid and repetitive.
There arent one post on this whole forum that looks like it came from
anyone who has more IQ points than there teeth.

A demented Peter Lucas Impersonator - November 2010 .

 

Well, the people arent moving away...

Of course it will. Why wouldnt it?

Agreed, but....

The last decent flood, in 2007 from memory, flooded the WHOLE of Bairnsdale,
Lakes Enterance, Sale, and surrounds
http://www.gippsrecovery.com/history.html

Going by this chart, the Mitchell has had 1 x "one in 30 year" flood, 1 x
"one
in 40 year flood" and 2 x "one in 80 year flood", all in 18 years! I
remember cleaning up after the
1990 flood...

$100's of millions of dollars spent on repairs afterwards... All could be
avoided...

 

Yeah - if they can afford high ground.
Maybe the Dutch approach is the go - if these people 'must' live on
a flood plain and do so in slab houses, they can do so in ones that can act
as rafts when things get nasty. BTW we're almost there with the styrene
slab trick - which are almost at marina finger construction level.
--
Your childish, witless, stupid and repetitive.
There arent one post on this whole forum that looks like it came from
anyone who has more IQ points than there teeth.

A demented Peter Lucas Impersonator - November 2010 .

 

Major flood level @ Bairnsdale Pumphouse sits at 8 metres. last flood 2
months ago got to 7.98 metres

I dont think so. All the houses, the refinery, no-ones gunna move away from
their work, their livelihood, and there's no need to, if the dam were built.

The dam on the Mitchell River is one solution to solve Melbournes water
storage crisis. It was costed at $1.3 billion. It would also supplament Blue
Rock dam, thus ensuring enough water for the power stations as well..

A desal costing $5.7 Billion, and $750 million per for the next 30 years,
and consuming 70 megawatts of brown-coal fired electricity (which the
greenies say is one of the root causes of climate change/global
warming/whatever name it is this week) is just a tad more expensive.

Now, to me, even a moron can see why i'm "rabbiting on about the desal
plant, as if its the only alternative." coz to me, it's a huge fucking waste
of $20 billion whilst the Mitchell dumps 900,000 megalitres of water (nearly
the equivalent of a full thomson dam) into Bass Strait every year (not
including the floodwaters), and flooding Bairnsdale every other year in the
process. I haven't seen any other sensible and affordable alternatives put
forward, only opposition to mine.

It's just about, oh, $18 BILLION dollars cheaper... and saves Bairnsdale
(and low lieing areas around) from flood. A desal plant cant do that...

Cost.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:47:48 +1100

Because it was cheaper than the higher ground and they made a bet that
they wouldn't get flooded.

Or they were too stupid or blinded by the price to check.

My grandfather was quite isistent that any land bought had to be above
flood level and that the buyer should make independent checks because
real estate agents lie.

Zebee

 

And he was right.

--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^

 

And all those buildings would be damaged, roads, bridges, telecoms, power
assets...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/row-gently-down-the-street/story-e6frf7kx-1111113840617

I guess the tenants of this house love pulling up the carpet...

Oh well, have you got any data thats firmer than the above?

 

The problem with checking is that councils do the flood ratings for
land, if people had been buying in Bairnsdale and even if they'd bee
doing their due diligence checks then the prospective buyer would have
been told "This block has a 1 in 80 year flood rating".

That's probably an optimistic rating


G-S