|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: [gislist] Making the *Environmental* in Systems ResearchInstitute
somewhat less relevant |
| Date: |
07/28/2004 01:10:02 PM |
| From: |
John Mickelson |
|
|
Hi,
I guess I would encourage you to do the same (as well
as the math).
Of the ~$90k+ total, Nader gets around $8, Gore (after
you account for the negative $3k) gets another grand.
The rest is to the GOP (mostly *this* year). Not
really comparable, (zilch to Dems this year): added
with the bite-me donation to Nader, pretty much shows
his colors.
Check out the site and run it yourself.
Opensecrets.org
I just think that its kind of interesting, given the
"one big family" schpeel that gets tossed around at
the User Conference (that Dangermond continues to
promote and profit from enormously), and the fact that
he's using *my* money to help elect the most
environmentally destructive Pres. we've ever had. I
also vote with my checkbook and think that folks might
be interested in knowing where and how their $ are
going. Thats all. The flood of responses I've received
have been overwhelmingly appreciative of having this
fact pointed out.
The current exchange notwithstanding, I'm not
particularly interested in adding to the hate-fest
that our contries been swallowed by, just getting some
facts out.
J
--- "True, Cynthia D." <truecd@missouri.edu> wrote:
> If you read the whole list of donations, you will
> see that the
> Dangermonds donated money to Al Gore, George Bush,
> and Ralph Nader.
> That's pretty much standard operating procedure for
> most companies in
> the USA... Cover all the bases.
>
> My 2 cents,
> dt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com
> [mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com] On Behalf
> Of Anthony
> Quartararo
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: 'John Mickelson': gislist@lists.geocomm.com
> Subject: RE: [gislist] Making the *Environmental* in
> Systems
> ResearchInstitute somewhat less relevant
>
> Well said Gregory. Note to John:
>
> Not all ESRI product users subscriber to the
> "warm-fuzzy, tree-hugging,
> granola-crunching, berkenstock-wearing, Earth-First!
> Monkey-wrench gang,
> PETA activism" mentality that seems to ooze from
> Redlands and other
> parts of the Pacific Northwest. Furthermore,
> whatever Mr. Dangermond
> (aka. Jack) wants to do with HIS money or HIS
> company, that's HIS
> prerogative. Last time anyone checked, he owned
> 100% of it. In fact,
> we Americans (and to a lesser extent, Canadians and
> Europeans) wallow in
> the luxurious notion of global environmentalism,
> simply because we are
> so well-off and so fortunate that it is no longer a
> challenge to "live"
> each day, so with all the "spare"
> time on our hands, we think of "sophisticated" ways
> to hinder the
> progress of others [ie. environmentalism in
> developing countries], while
> simultaneously whining about gas that is $2 per
> gallon, when it really
> should be $10 per gallon. Notwithstanding the
> veracity of the purported
> donations, Jack and ESRI have probably done more
> collectively, to
> promote environmental issues in every aspect of a
> society, across the
> globe than any other FOR PROFIT corporation, bar
> none. So quit yer
> moaning and vote, just don't pepper the list with
> any more left-leaning
> dribble please. Thank you.
>
> Anthony
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com
> > [mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com] On
> Behalf Of Ross, Gregory
> > K.
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:21 AM
> > To: 'John Mickelson': 'gislist@lists.geocomm.com'
> > Subject: RE: [gislist] Making the *Environmental*
> in Systems Research
> > Institute somewhat less relevant
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Not really sure what your post implies, though I
> have a vague idea
> > that you are not happy with our current
> administration and lack the
> > patience to wait until election day to voice your
> opinion.
> >
> > >From Dictionary. COM:
> >
> > en*vi*ron*men*tal adj. (n-vrn-mntl, -vrn-)
> > 1.Of, relating to, or associated with the
> environment.
> > 2.Relating to or being concerned with the
> ecological impact of
> > altering the environment.
> > 3.Medicine. Of or relating to potentially harmful
> factors originating
> > in the
> > environment: environmental illness.
> >
> > One would assume that ESRI uses the first (and
> most common)
> > definition, thereby having NOTHING to do with the
> second definition.
> >
> > I have always believed that one has the right to
> voice there opinion
> > at the ri
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
