Yesterday morning I said THIS.
Yesterday evening I received THIS LETTER.
What do you think? Are the two events connected?
PS The Lipsky water was tested independently and by the EPA and the TRRC. To see the results of those tests click HERE and see numbers 18, 19, 28 and so on under “FINDINGS OF FACT.”
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5117)
Ola Sharon,
Thinking of machetes & intellectual thickets…
Seems we have a new category…Pink-Letter Law
Elizabeth might have some good tips for you
Keep swing’n away…
This is clearly an attack on free speech and your rights to post your opinion. The ACLU may want to get involved or other defenders of our constitution.
This is clearly an attack on free speech and your rights to post your opinion.
Ya think? =)
I hadn’t thought of the ACLU but other organizations have contacted me with offers of help should I need it. Maybe I should give the ACLU a holler.
Normally, when I write a missive to someone which expresses my grievance(s) with their message(s) and/or behavior(s), I include specific citation(s) of the information and/or action(s) which have caused my ire. Mr. Sims “letter,” which is referred by hyperlink above, expresses his grievances with a message but cites no specifics in the form of quotations from posts or hyperlinks.
If Mr. Sims is concerned about Miss Sharon’s “simply false” references to “water quality in the area of the Lipskys’ home,” why not include specific citations to the studies and/or tests that substantiate his claim? That being said, my degree in the Life Sciences has taught me that test results can vary widely depending upon the conditions under which the samples were collected and tested. Is it possible that more than one set of tests was conducted and each set produced different, yet valid, results?
At this point, what is the nature of the falsehood?
Does the falsehood occur because of the “water quality in the area of the Lipskys’ home” or is it the quality of the water that touches the lips of the animals and the roots of the plants that consume it? How is “water quality” determined, by proximity or at the point of consumption? Long-term or short-term?
Without proper citations, it is hard to say.
Mr. Sims refers to “responsible oil and gas development” and it should be just that: responsible. I’ve enough first-hand experience, decades in my case, with the long-term legacy of mining in Arizona and petrochemical refining in Southeast Texas that I can say “responsible” lies in the eyes of the beholder. Tailings ponds, the result of mining operations, allowed to contaminate the land and watershed for decades; petrochemical vapor emissions and stack flares, timed to coincide with a north wind, so that the the airborne pollutants are blown out to sea and away from any air quality monitoring stations only to have them blow back on shore a day or so later. “Responsible” practices, such as leaving the dregs of your industry behind for a government “superfund” to clean up, maybe, if the companies “responsible” cease to hide behind their lawyers in an effort to defray responsibility and/or delay the clean up as long as possible.
It isn’t so much that some of the people reading and commenting on this blog have “a point of view that doesn’t allow for responsible oil and gas development” rather, in my humble opinion, it is more likely that many of them have a “view” based upon past experience: one tempered by first-hand experience of promises made yet not fulfilled.
They keep forgetting that I have a vested interested in “responsible oil and gas development.” I co-authored Drill Right Texas with high hopes that drilling right was a possibility. I’ve not seen “responsible oil and gas development” yet. Not anywhere. I no longer believe it is a possibility. If it is, prove it.
Seems legit. Your argument cuts both ways. Free speech does not include defamation, wouldn’t you agree? That’s all the letter says. As long as you steer clear of posts that you know are false -or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not- your good.
If you think what Sharon has wrote is defamation, then you should see the comments on the net about Enbridge pipeline & tar sands crude leaks!
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120627/ARTICLES/120629643
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/26/dan-murphy-vancouver-province-enbridge-pipeline-parody-pulled-postmedia-_n_1629388.html
Sharon, it seems like you’ve got them right where you want them.
I personally can’t believe that they would be attorneys from Range would actually be so stupid as to risk a public showdown with you at this point.
I think you should tell them to BRING IT. Give them a date and a time and a place. Pick someplace with nice lighting. See who shows.
There might be plenty of folks with plenty of questions for those gentlemen as well. This should be fun. Please DO keep us informed.
There is no reason to depose Sharon at this point. This looks like revenge. Would the shareholders think the attorney fees to get revenge on a blogger are in their best interest?
Range SUCKS, Big Time and it always will.
This David Poole guy has a couple of screws loose. What would the Range Resources investors think about him spending tens of thousands of dollars to depose you for nothing, no wonder Range is losing money with this nut as an officer. It would appear that they are determined to be the biggest joke in an industry with a lot of jokes.
anger mgmt candidate.
Poole better get used to these depositions, because he likely has a few coming to him when the Justice Department starts digging into the Range Resource price fixing in Southwestern Pennsylvania. I am guessing he won’t do so well in the pokey.
I’ve seen plenty of posts on this blog that have crossed the line. But Range making an example out of you seems foolish…I mean what’s the end game? They shut you down and your a hero. Everybody worships the martyr. That’s what keeps you going – all the attention your getting. Sounds like your already cashing in, sweet new gig with the enviro group. Beats the heck out of waiting tables or working at starbucks like most other bloggers.
OH Tom above, bite my ass!
After reading “THIS LETTER”, I can only only conclude that Range SUCKS!
The only thing that will stop RRC from this harassment is bad PR. They could care less about spending $10 or $100 Grand. RRC is a multi-Billion dollar corporation!
David did kill Goliath with a stone! In this case the stone will be bad PR if RRC continues.
That letter is fundamentally a misrepresentation because it was not signed by the author, David Poole, who has a distinct way of trying to sound smarter than he is.
In the end, the public will only remember one thing, Big Gas Mafia picks on single Mom. Wow, how powerful you are, you can’t shut up ONE DAMN SINGLE MOM. Maybe you aren’t quite as powerful as you think you are. Scratch the maybe, you’re not.
The easiest way to shut Sharon up-at least concerning Range, is very simple and cost effective at the same time, builds trust with the communities, and provides a basis for great public relations: DRILL BETTER, SUCK LESS.
If Range Resources spent half as much money on drilling RIGHT, there would be no lawsuits (and subsequently, all those MANY SETTLEMENTS) Matt Pitzarella would be relegated to promoting the latest Range Resources T-Shirt giveaways and new story lines for the Frackosaurus coloring books, and David Poole could spend time out on the golf course with Judge Loftin and Joe Barton rather than crying and whining like a little girl who just fell off her swing.