Stuy Town residents at 18 and 20 Stuyvesant Oval have been dealing with a rat problem of bubonic plague proportions. Tenants have reported seeing rats around their building in broad daylight, in the elevators, and in one case, a rat sprung out of a recycle bin landing on a 10 year-old child. Two dead rats were even found in the wall after a horrible odor led maintenance on a grotesque treasure hunt. Tenants are growing frustrated.For months residents have called management about the rats that have the run of their building. "It's awful," says Irene Rizzo, a resident of 18 Stuyvesant Oval. "I won't take my recycling downstairs anymore because as soon as I open the door, the floor in the dark room starts moving and I hear them squeaking. One night I was so afraid I threw my recycling at the door and ran! I've called management but I just got voicemails."
In May, tenants reported a repulsive smell coming from the recycling area in 20 Stuyvesant Oval. Management quickly responded with a can of Febreeze and called it a day. When the stench persisted, tiles were removed from the wall revealing two decomposing rats. "It's absolutely disgusting," says a tenant in the building. "I have called management but it's impossible to reach anyone of importance because those nasty children they have answering the phones, Holly and Andrew, just connect you to random voicemails, when they are not hanging up on you. I hate them."
The rat sightings are not limited to the recycling areas. One night a resident had a large rat fall from the ceiling in her elevator and had to ride with her diseased traveling companion, playing ring-around-the-rosie for 8 floors. "I have never experienced anything so traumatic in my entire life," she tells us, asking to remain anonymous. "There's so much food and garbage lying around from the people constantly moving in and out it's like heaven to them, hell to me."
Adults are not the only ones terrified of the scurrying scavengers. "I'm teaching my daughter the importance of recycling and taking care of our planet," says Janette James of 18 Stuyvesant Oval. "Each night we sort our recycling and bring it downstairs but last week as she was tossing her Highlights Magazines into the bin, a rat sprung out, ran down her overalls, and took off behind a storage unit. She's had waking nightmares ever since."
When asked for comment about the rat population and the growing concern tenants have for their health, Tishman Speyer spokesperson, Bud Perrone, said, "Rats leaping on little girls? She was asking for it."
These "rats" are our newest Amenity, specially trained to provide a multitude of services including elimination of edible trash, concierge services and to guard against the illegal dumping of that horrible Ikea furniture that sometimes appears in the place where garbage is discarded.
Contrary to your belief, Tishman Speyer continues to service their residents at top-of-the-line levels. Our clients have told us that our newly trained "rat corps" are much appreciated and have found them to be helpful, entertaining and informative !
So now we have bedbugs and rats- What is next -locustS?
TS is giving us their version of the Ten Plagues
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pest/pestrat.shtml
"'It's awful,' says Irene Rizzo..."
Any relation to Ratso Rizzo?
We had an ongoing rat problem in the gardens for a couple of years that seems to have subsided. Fortunately for us they stayed outside.
However, we've had a mouse problem in the laundry room, and neighbors are contributing to the problem. Some people are using the lockers as pantries, storing food in them, and food is even being disposed of in the recycling bins.
That led to a stench of dead animal in the basement for months that the porter was finally able to get under control. He was able to get it under control thanks to a smart management decision: our porter is no longer taking care of 4 to 5 buildings, he is now taking care of ours and one other alone. (I believe the old TS system was to have a porter do the garbage and recycling in a number of buildings, leaving mopping and vacuuming to crews moving from building to building.) That means our laundry room is clean for the first time in a couple of years, mouse traps with critters in the basement are being disposed of, the recycling area is cleaner, and the building in general seems cleaner. Whoever decided to finally get real with porters' assignments deserves some credit -- credit where and when it's due.
That's pretty gross. Tenants within the affected building should band together and "group" complain via the link provided by the thoughtful posted earlier. Only tenants within the building will have standing in the complaint process.
Effective complaining requires patience and diligence. All efforts should be documented in a log, noting the time, date, method, and any names of people spoken to.
If the Owner or the city doesn't remedy the problem, the next step would be for RS tenants to file an Application For Rent Reduction for A Decrease in Building Wide Services
This will draw the Owners attention very quickly. But it is best to exhaust all other routes first.
I saw one somewhere between my building on 14th and one on Ave. C. I thought it was a squirrel until I noticed how skinny, straight, and long the tail was. And wow, that boy was big.
That's pretty gross. Tenants within the affected building should band together and "group" complain via the link provided by the thoughtful posted earlier. Only tenants within the building will have standing in the complaint process.
Effective complaining requires patience and diligence. All efforts should be documented in a log, noting the time, date, method, and any names of people spoken to.
If the Owner or the city doesn't remedy the problem, the next step would be for RS tenants to file an Application For Rent Reduction for A Decrease in Building Wide Services
This will draw the Owner's attention very quickly. But it is best to exhaust all other routes first.
Don't be silly, that isn't a photo of rats in Stuy Town. That's a photo of Montserat, Espada and Strassberg having a meeting in the men's room of the senate chamber in Albany.
beulah, that's bloomberg, christine quinn and an unknown ass lick laughing their way to a third term.
This morning at 9 a.m. there were rats in the shrubbery in front of 19 Stuyvesant Oval. This is a serious issues folks and I wish some of us would not turn it into a joke about our politicians. I don't like them either, but what goes on in Albany and at City Hall is not directly relevant to our rat problem. We need to get on management about this before it gets out of control. We need pictures and plenty of them. Otherwise management will just dismiss the complaints. I went in and got my camera, but they do not like humans and had disappeared. Tomorrow I plan to go out early in the morning with the camera.
That's scary. The joke isn't the rats. The bad joke is TS and their "luxury" apartments. People in that building have to complain to the city. Unlike TS the city does respond.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pest/pestrat.shtml
Everyone should fill out Lois Aida's recommended form above: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pest/pestrat.shtml
List TS as the owner, and in the details section explain that rats are infesting all the areas that are covered with dense plantings.
I would tell the city that they are most noticeable at night.
I filled out the form. Tomorrow I will do my morning walk very early because they are likely to be out then and there will be enough light to take pictures. From now on I will carry my trusty 10 meg camera with me and document as much as possible.
People discard food garbage and unwashed food containers in the recycling bins in my building. I asked the porter if it got sorted at some point and he said no, if there is food garbage in with the plastics, aluminums, etc., the recycling people won't take it so it ALL ends up in the landfill. That's one of the reasons I don't recycle anymore. What's the point if people are throwing in chicken bones, pizza, yogurt, etc., and rending the whole bag unrecyclable? The other reason is the recycling area is so full of flies and roaches and stinks so much it is nauseating. I've seen rats outside in the shrubbery, but so far not inside. Seen a few mice though. I think mice are par for the course outside because they are field mice (I think that's what they call them), but rats are just totally unacceptable.
On the subject of furniture disposal though, I am wondering if Edna and Mother were able to get a converter box for the Philco, or did it have to go to the Analog TV Graveyard?
Food in the recycling bins is a surefire way to get roaches and mice, or worse, roaches and rats.
You should a.) notify management. Letters from management about this sort of stuff generally scares the shit out of my neighbors, and some new kids in our building actually thought that's where trash was supposed to go. b.) start to recycle. Sorry but there is no legitimate excuse not to, and not recycling makes you no better than your neighbors who put food garbage in the recycling bins.
I've told management, as have several of my neighbors. I have requested that they post notices and put letters under doors. Management totally ignores us. Management is only there to collect the rent, nothing else.
There is not excuse for not putting the recyclables in the proper bin. Stupid is as stupid does. Instead of following the others like a lemming, try being a leader and set a good example for others to follow.
should read 'no excuse'!
I have to say, there's never a shortage of preachy scolds on this board!
Q: How does recycling help the environment?
A: Recycling helps the environment by slowing down the rate at which we have to burn garbage or put it in landfills. With fewer landfills we can have more space for people to farm, live, and work. Recycling also helps by reducing our need to consume fresh natural resources to make new products. As a result we can save these resources for use by future generations. Most importantly, recycling saves energy and reduces pollution. This could help slow down global climate change, another environmental problem caused by burning fossil fuels like oil and gas.
Q: What would happen if everyone stopped recycling?
A: Disposing of your garbage could become much more expensive. Since everybody would be throwing away everything, landfills would fill up faster. We would have to build more and more to accept all of the new garbage. People who have to live near landfills are generally opposed to building new ones. Many of our natural resources would disappear even faster. The supply of any material on our Earth is limited. While it may seem like we could never run out, if we keep filling our landfills with aluminum, plastic, and steel there will eventually be no more left.
http://www.recycle.com/faqs.html
OK. I get the picture, but I hope that TS does its part and cracks down in whatever way it can on those who "pollute" the recycling with foods and other non-recycleable items which means that NONE of it gets recycled because it is not sorted, unfortunately. It probably would be too expensive to sort it. I always feel that TS is simply "nodding" to the recycling program rather than actually participating in it. I've been recycling paper and cardboard since the inception of recycling because people usually don't throw food waste in the paper bin, but the platics, glass, etc. ..... yuk! I was down there earlier and it was swarming with flies.
Another thing, people throw salad containers and take out food containers, along with paper coffee cups, etc., into the recycling. That stuff is not recycleable even though the "offenders" probably think it is.
The NY Times on recycling:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html
From the above article:
"Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes makes sense -- for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative. Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources."
Frankly, I'm interested in whether Tishman Speyer has paid any fines for not recycling properly.
Of course John TIerney would be against recycling! If you knew anything about him, you'd understand why. The man is a conservative who is totally biased. Not to mention this article is from 1996.
As one journalist put it, John Tierney is a "credulous stenographer for right-wing think tanks" who also doesn't believe in global warming.
From a professor at Michigan State University who challenges Tierney's view that global warming is not a risk:
"Sure enough, John Tierney, who loves to portray himself as unbiased but has repeatedly carried over his right-wing-columnist priorities to science “journalism,” spends his few paragraphs on this criticism rather than on the scientifically stronger descriptions of climate change’s other current effects, to say nothing of the absolutely established role of anthropogenic effects in observable global change and the incredible risks it poses for the future.....he gives the wrong impression about the credibility of the current report and, by implication, the overwhelming consensus among scientists about the severe dangers from greenhouse gas buildup.
I’ve read at least a half-dozen “unbiased” pieces by Tierney in the paper....interpretation supporting conservative policies.
In an opinion columnist, this is well and good. Tierney’s inability to recognize his biases for the biases they are, however, makes him unfit to write about science. Enough already!
Charles Hoogstraten
Michigan State University"
Here's John Tierney accused of borderline bigotry in one of his editorials:
"All Of A Sudden It's OK To Hurl Ethnic Slurs On The New York Times Op-Ed Page?"
http://realitybitesback.blogspot.com/2006/11/john-tierneys-polack-problem.html
Shame on you Stuy Town Reporter! Saying that a columnist from the Op-Ed page represents the NY Times views on recycling? And quoting an opinion from 1996?? I won't re-hash what Girl states about the author.
You should know better!
Oh, this is fun!
Stuy Town Reporter....here's your rebuttal to John Tierney's piece against recycling....called an "intellectually dishonest piece of advocacy" by a NRDC scientist:
"Tierney’s attack on recycling was written for the Times magazine in 1996. He claimed that recycling consumes more resources than it conserves, and in fact does little to save energy, or trees, or other natural resources. In addition, he wrote, landfill space in the United States is abundant, and poses little danger of leakage. Not a single representative of the recycling industry was quoted in the extensive piece.
Environmental Defense, an environmental advocacy organization, provided a 17-page, item-by-item rebuttal to each of Tierney’s claims. The group called the article “anything but a fact-based assessment,” and accused Tierney of “unquestioningly repeat[ing] the claims of a group of think tanks and consultants” with ideological objections to recycling, like the libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation. One of the major opponents of recycling quoted by Tierney headed an environmental consulting business for hire to solid waste companies, giving him a clear financial interest in opposing recycling.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another environmental advocacy organization, produced an 86-page rebuttal of its own. Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a NRDC scientist, called Tierney’s story “an intellectually dishonest piece of advocacy.”
In September of this year, Tierney wrote another story for the Times magazine, in which he attacked opponents of suburban sprawl, and called for “more tolls, more roads, and yes, more cars.” As a way to reduce driving, Tierney proposed a punitive tax on the cost of gasoline. In return, environmentalists would have to support new toll lanes and road construction."
Complete scathing article about John Tierney from Columbia Journalism Review:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_problem_with_john_tierney.php
Good job Frick!
Your Friend,
Frack
Thanks, but I'm Frack.....you're Frick, remember?
From an article appropriately titled: The Problem with John Tierney:
"The favored candidate to replace William Safire as the voice of conservatism on the New York Times op-ed page is long-term Timesman John Tierney, according to a report in New York magazine this week.
Tierney, currently based in the Times’ Washington bureau, has worked as a reporter on the paper’s Metro desk and as a staff writer for its Sunday magazine. But his chief qualification for elevation to the op-ed page is his stint from 1994 to 2002 writing “The Big City,” a bi-weekly column on the front page of the paper’s Metro section."
Hey, all you people who hate and despise me: girl, Roundly Roger, Loathemyspace, Duchess, et al., I have to tell you this: You would love my girl, Beulette. Why? Because Beulette is really into recycling. Not so much bottles, cans and newspapers. But Men. Beulette believes that no discarded man should go into the landfill if he has a pulse. She has recycled so many men in her life. Why, Toeless Joe is on his fifth-go-round and he's only the (suspected) father of 7 of her kids. If Beulette could get a nickel deposit back on all the men who've been through her trailer she could move into the Dakota or Trump Tower tonight. Kids, dogs, Toeless Joe and all. Beulette is the Queen of Recycling. And, talking of Queens, she is still carrying a torch for Robbie. Her little heart still breaks that he chose Annie Cecillie whatsherface instead of her as a ticket to Straightdom. She could have Straightened him in a night of undiluted bliss in her trailer. But she's no businesswoman, even though she gets FIOS and unlimited phone service becuause of her "arrangement" with the guy with the FIOS stand in the Oval. I don't know why she isn't more educated because lord knows her daddy was (probably) that encylopedia salesman who I had the "special arrangement" with all those years ago. Ah, this mommy's heart breaks. Oy, the pain.
ZZZZZZ Yawn. No I don't like her either. Just a poor imitation of RR and Edna.
Anyway,oopsie! Thanks for the reminder Frack!
I was so busy sorting my recyclables
that I forgot who I was for a moment!
So, which of girl's posts were you responding to with that last one? You really do forget who you are! LOL!
Ah, so Tierney is a conservative--and therefore he must be wrong! Makes sense to me!
No, it's not because he's conservative, it's because he's biased, intellectually dishonest, and has an agenda. Try investigating your source before posting an article from 1996:
"Not a single representative of the recycling industry was quoted in the extensive piece.
Environmental Defense, an environmental advocacy organization, provided a 17-page, item-by-item rebuttal to each of Tierney’s claims. The group called the article “anything but a fact-based assessment,” and accused Tierney of “unquestioningly repeat[ing] the claims of a group of think tanks and consultants” with ideological objections to recycling, like the libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation. One of the major opponents of recycling quoted by Tierney headed an environmental consulting business for hire to solid waste companies, giving him a clear financial interest in opposing recycling.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another environmental advocacy organization, produced an 86-page rebuttal of its own. Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a NRDC scientist, called Tierney’s story “an intellectually dishonest piece of advocacy.”
LOL. If you are talking agenda, everyone seems to have one.
Environmental Defense has been attacked, according to Wiki:
Critics on the American right have argued that not all of the EDF's policies have always been beneficial to either the environment or to humanity. Writer Christopher C. Horner, for example, has compared the spread of malaria after the DDT ban that EDF sponsored to a deliberate genocide, citing a quotation from a spokesman of EDF saying: "This is as sure a way to get rid of them as any." [84]
Jon Berlau, author of the book Eco-Freaks, has also argued that EDF and later the Clinton administration, due to an "earth-worshiping mentality," interfered with operations of the US Army Corps of Engineers via judicial activism with the aid of Judge Charles Schwartz, resulting in the forestalling of levee reinforcement that led to Katrinagate shortly after Hurricane Katrina. This, Berlau argues, was the prime motivation behind "contempt for human life and safety, all for the sake of a few fish and mosquitoes." This conspiracy theory was offered as a counter to the conspiracy theory that the Bush administration was behind Katrinagate in an effort to wipe out blacks.
--------------
Of course, we must bear in mind that this criticism is coming from the "American Right"--so they must be wrong also!
Please tell me you did not just use Wikepedia as a source!
Oh, and one of the writers quoted above who criticized Tierney is Zachary Roth, a liberal columnist. AGENDA.
You google, I google.
"We must bear in mind that this criticism is coming from the American Right?" Try right-wing wackos! Great sleuthing on Dikepedia, Stuy Town Reporter. Way to go.
Don't give up your day job.
Re StuyTown reporter: If some one advertises themselves with "I know of what I speak" it is Run Away time IMHO and I'm not following this thread so closely except to say that TS can only lap up the lack of solidarity as lack of credibilty.
Seriously, it looks bad, but I am open to not understanding the agenda here perhaps.
One Love.
Wikipedia is a perfectly good source, as long as the entries use sources. It's obvious that all the responses here have been sourced from THE INTERNET, so please, let's not get high and mighty with sources.
You guys are just upset that people are out there you disagree with you. Eco-fascists may be the correct term. There are a lot of trees out there in Stuy Town. Hug one. LOL.
Oy.
I'm not into hugging dead trees.
riiiight. I suppose they told you that Wikepedia was a perfectly good source at The Learning Annex.
ROFL! Okay, Stuy Town Reporter....so we're "eco fascists" because we believe in recycling and concur with so many other leading journalists that Tierney is biased? Better go back to your little blog and write about the missing cabbage!
Loathemyspace, if you think Wikipedia is NOT a good source, depending on the sources used, then you have to get in touch with the real world and move out of the 19th century. ALL responders who used quotes in this thread used THE INTERNET to quickly find criticisms of Tierney. The validity of these criticisms, and their truth, is on par with Wikipedia--again depending on the sources used! Follow? Or are you still upset that not everyone believes in recycling?
Anyway, re-read the Wiki entry I quoted. There's NOTHING in there that's untruthful, as it's quoting or referring to other opinions about the Environmental Defense organization. The entry is not stating that these opinions are true. Again, do you follow?
I take it you are another slob who tosses everything done the garbage chute.
hmmm let me see if I can dig up an article on microfiche to dispute your point.
Oh, poor baby Loathemyspace. You can only hurl little baby insults when you have nothing of substance in your repertoire. Suck on an eco-friendly milkie bottle and go to sleep.
Girl: "Okay, Stuy Town Reporter....so we're 'eco fascists' because we believe in recycling and concur with so many other leading journalists that Tierney is biased?"
What "many other leading journalists"???
Shouldn't you be busy moderating your own blog rather than childishly picking on commenters here? Oh, wait...there are no comments on your blog since nobody visits it after figuring out it was a lame attempt to rip-off this one!
Ah, another one that can't handle a debate but must resort to baby insults! Priceless! Ask you a simple question about who are the "many other leading journalists" and you come up very short and surrender with a few insults. Nothing much to say of substance, eh, girlie?
[Oh, and do check my blog. It does have comments! Yuppie! How incredible can that be!]
This blog used to be fun to read until it became hijacked by a couple of nasty people who have turned it into a virtual minefield for anyone who posts something they disagree with. The personal attacks and name calling are outrageous. Tishman Speyer must love seeing how anyone who disagrees with girl and loathmyspace are basically stepping on a vipers' nest. Shame.
LOL it has comments that are all anonymous !
I'm another one who doesn't recycle quite as religiously as before and I'm not alone in this. The recycling area in my building is so dark and dirty and anyone could be lurking around hidden by the storage lockers. The bins are usually overflowing with all kinds of smelly, greasy dreck that shouldn't even be in there. I live in one of the dorm buildings and the kids seem to not have keys to the recycling area so the door is propped open most of the time and the door to the street is also propped open a lot so the friends can come and go as they like without having to be buzzed in. So much for security cameras! Considering the recent attacks on the elderly, it's not surprising if some of them don't want to venture into the recycling area. It used to be reassuring to see people in the laundry room, but now that room is so dirty and so many of the machines broken not too many people use it any more. (Mac Gray must be a godsend to the guy who owns the 14th Street Wash and Clean; that has to be a little goldmine. He should expand to the empty store next door to him.)
Whoa there Beulah. For the record, I do not "hate and despise you." At all. My disagreements with you generally stem from the fact that you sometimes shoot from the hip, posting things without thinking them through. Like your silly recycling comment and especially the comment I've just referenced.
Stuy Town Reporter
From the US EPA:
I'd also like to suggest that it might be a good idea for readers to make a practice of following your links like girl did. It certainly looks like you tried to misrepresent your quote, a 1996 op-ed piece from dishonest broker on climate change John Tierney, as an "article" from "the NY Times on recycling."
Follow the link yourself, RR, and I don't think you will find that Tierney's article is listed as an "op-ed" piece, unless I'm missing something. It is an article, fairly long in length (way too long for a simple op-ed), that appeared in the magazine section of The New York Times. You should also note what it says at the bottom of each section of the article: "A version of this article appeared in print on Sunday, June 30, 1996, on section 6 page 24 of the New York edition." So not only did Tierney's piece appear in the magazine section, it also appeared in the New York edition, a double whammy from, yes, the New York Times. And, please also note that the Times itself calls this an "article."
And you made a slip in the objective department by stating that Tierney is a "dishonest broker on climate change." So you arrive at the table already with your own menu.
For the record, I do recycle (mostly), but I'm aware that as I do so I could be wasting my time.
An excerpt from the blog post:
John Tierney, The New York Times Staff Twit:
"John Tierney has worked for the NY Times since 1990. Why someone hasn’t fired him is news to me. First, he wrote “Recycling is Garbage,” which argued that it was more cost-effective to throw stuff away than recycle it. That story broke the NY Times’ hate mail record. Imagine.
Unfortunately for the NY Times and the rest of the world, the Times hasn’t figured out what a dangerous dumb-ass he is. Case in point is a story running today, “10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List.”
Granted, some of the 10 are faux scares. But many more of these “scratches” are a thinly veiled libertarian (Tierney’s one) attempt to say “f–k the environment” in genteel Times verbiage. Example:
5. Evil plastic bags. Take it from the Environmental Protection Agency : paper bags are not better for the environment than plastic bags. If anything, the evidence from life-cycle analyses favors plastic bags. They require much less energy — and greenhouse emissions — to manufacture, ship and recycle. They generate less air and water pollution. And they take up much less space in landfills.
True, sort of. If you compare disposable bags to one another, plastic is a less energy-intensive bag. But the way you frame the debate is everything. He’s just comparing disposable bags, as if they’re the only two options. And he’s assuming they’ll end up in landfills!!
Tierney is blithely ignoring the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is toxic swamp plastic debris that’s twice the size of Texas. Let me repeat that: twice the size of Texas. Or this pithy little stat courtesy of Salon.com: “Every year, Americans throw away some 100 billion plastic bags after they’ve been used to transport a prescription home from the drugstore or a quart of milk from the grocery store. It’s equivalent to dumping nearly 12 million barrels of oil.”
Or this one: “According to the Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation, more than a million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die every year from eating or getting entangled in plastic.”
Or this one: “There are 46,000 pieces of plastic litter floating in every square mile of ocean, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.”
Oh, and while you’re having a good time in denial, might as well ignore …
8. The Arctic’s missing ice. The meltdown in the Arctic last summer was bad enough, but this spring there was worse news. A majority of experts expected even more melting this year, and some scientists created a media sensation by predicting that even the North Pole would be ice-free by the end of summer.
So far, though, there’s more ice than at this time last summer, and most experts are no longer expecting a new record. You can still fret about long-term trends in the Arctic, but you can set aside one worry: This summer it looks as if Santa can still have his drinks on the rocks.
I “can still fret” about that, John? Gee, thanks you patronizing dickhead. I’ll feel so much better knowing “Santa can still have his drinks on the rocks.”
Want to know my biggest worry? It’s that the Times will continue to print Tierney’s asinine stories."
http://johnochwat.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/john-tierney-the-new-york-times-staff-retard/
"And you made a slip in the objective department by stating that Tierney is a "dishonest broker on climate change." So you arrive at the table already with your own menu."
More than one scientist is quoted in the above links stating that Tierney is dishonest and unqualified to speak about the environment. But clearly you never bother to read the facts before spewing more misinformation.
I stand corrected in the op-ed department, but not my characterization of Tierney, whose "obectivity' has been frequently questioned. I am going to assume that you were not aware of his reputation, so here's what the American Prospect and the Columbia Journalism Review have to say about his "tendencies."
According to the American Prospect magazine in 2001:
The Columbia Journalism Review has this to say:
Here are solid recycling statistics from the EPA about recycling:
Some great facts there RR. Thanks. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Wikipedia is not your research tool.
I like Wiki in general, but take it with a grain of salt.
For instance, I would never use a Wiki entry by an author who would choose to call his book, "Eco-Freaks," and who is is the director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank founded by a guy who thinks that global warming resulting from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide might be "a good thing because of all the cool new crops we could grow," to attack the scientific integrity of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Especially when the author argues because the
meant that EDF suffered from a
That's the kind of thing a right wing hack might do, though.
RR, it's funny how you buttress your points by latching onto magazines and "review journals" that are clearly left, politically, and the EPA, which has been attacked (obviously from the right) as being liberal and anti-capitalist. The truth from one side will not set you free.
You, like your cheering pal Loathsome, also fail to read well. The Wikipedia entry is NOT "by an author who would choose to call his book, 'Eco-Freaks.' (Your exact words.) The Wiki entry MENTIONS the book and the author's position. Ergo, the Wiki entry attempts to be "fair and balanced" by presenting pros and cons. The entry is heavily sourced, too. 85 footnotes, which is probably more than you guys generated in all your schooling days. If it's a case of missing your reading glasses, RR, understandable; if it's a case of comprehension, I can only point you in the right direction and then you are on your own...and presumably floundering, with Loathsome by your side.
Loathsome ROFL
Gee now that's original!
Good work Einstein!
A+ for effort
F for creativity
I don't think it's funny at all that I would use TAP, CJR, and the EPA to buttress my arguments. While TAP is a liberal magazine, it's current mission is to fact check right wing disinformation like yours. The CJR is decidedly not "clearly left," or even liberal -- it's as a mag written about journalism for professional journalists. And I have never heard anybody characterize the EPA as "being liberal and anti-capitalist" -- it's a gov't regulatory agency!
Despite you besides the point ramblings, my point about the author stands. I know your Wiki entry is trying to be fair and balanced, but you chose the two industry flacks from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who make up the ENTIRE CON side (as in opposite of PRO), to back up your contention. Their inclusion in the entry is the one of the reasons I said in the first place that I take Wiki with "a grain of salt." You should be embarassed to have brought that part of the Wiki entry up, unless you ARE a right wing hack, or you can't research for shit, in which case you're a "reporter" only in your own mind.
The rats are far more interesting than this discussion.
I'd really like to lock the lot of you up in a 20' cargo container and let you all have at it.
Not getting it at home, Anonymous?
Girl! How can he have time to get any when he's been so busy posting comments on Stuy Town Reporters blog!
True, but it still wasn't appropriate for him to post his kinky gang bang fantasy on Luxie's site!
True, but there are freaky perverts all over the internet Girl. Unfortunately that includes Luxie's site.
I don't think it is Luxie's site any more.
Y'all still should lock yourselves in a dark room, winner take all. I stand by my post.
Speaking of sockpuppets...
and when were you appointed spokesperson for Luxie?
Have never claimed to be a spokesperson for Luxie. I was just making an observation.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to note the interesting timing when your recent attacks on us started. You also come across as jealous and resentful of the popularity and high level of activity on this site, and have singled us out to project your neurotic shit onto by trying to control & silence us with snarky comments. To quote one of Lux's brilliant lines: Who made you hall monitor?
No wonder people are beginning to suspect you're Stuy Town Reporter's sock puppet! It couldn't be anymore obvious.
You couldn't be more absolutely, ludicrously wrong and if you can check out technically where posts come from, you will see that for yourself. Lux could probably do that. When it comes to projecting and being nasty and snarky, I think you should look at yourself, girl. I think that in the not-too-distant future you and your vicious pal will have this site all to yourselves.
Yippee ! It worked !!
Now we can get this party started!
P.S. - Girl you are most definitely correct - I just sent you an email!
"I think that in the not-too-distant future you and your vicious pal will have this site all to yourselves."
I doubt it, since your posts would have already emptied the site by boring everybody to death.
I don't know about the real horror stories here (although I no longer doubt them), but I have seen an increase in the number of rats running around outside at night, in particular between the dumpsters on the Ave. C loop and the surrounding buildings.
Apparently, tho' they're terrible at managing residential real estate, Rob and Jerr have a wonderful future opening five-star restaurants that cater to rats and other vermin.
There were some notices in my building Monday night in the lobbies and in both elevators warning of a rat infestation. They must have been put up by a tenant because they were ripped down by a TS worker the next morning. I saw him doing it. What a class act this slumlord is.