RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


stef -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 3:56:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I keep trying to think of reasons why anyone would want to live in San Francisco in the first place.

Clearly, thinking isn't your strong suit.

quote:

Oh, I know! It's for the $3,000 per month 2 b/r 750 square foot 4th floor walkup apartments, right?

Are you basing this information on the same source that informed you there hadn't been an execution in California in over a decade?  $3000 apartments are the exception to the rule in SF, generally reserved for apartments in the Marina or in other luxury apartments, but don't let the facts get in the way of your small-minded misconceptions.  Perhaps you should consider that trotting our your titanic ignorance on such a regular basis is not in your best interest, no matter what measure of comic relief it may provide for the rest of us.

~stef




popeye1250 -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 4:14:23 PM)

Sure, why wouldn't anyone want to live in the "Cleveland of the West?" Silly me.




GoddessMine -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 4:17:02 PM)

That must be an old man phrase cuz I've never heard of it. Old man. High fives.

Love,
GM




popeye1250 -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 4:45:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessMine

That must be an old man phrase cuz I've never heard of it. Old man. High fives.

Love,
GM

GM, yeah, it's an "old man expression", I'm sure you've never heard it before.




shallowdeep -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 6:36:04 PM)

The proposed bans on indoor wood fires are purely an air-quality issue. Contrary to the assertions in the disgruntled letter linked in the OP, global warming is not part of the rationale for the ban. Concern about smog from fireplaces in the Bay Area predates general awareness of global warming and, providing firewood it harvested in a sustainable manner, net contributions to atmospheric CO2 from fireplaces are minimal anyway.

The issue is the particulates that can cause problems for those with asthma and increase the risks of various respiratory illnesses. During winter, wood burning fireplaces account for around 30 percent of these particulates in the region, and significantly more in certain areas. The local geography and climate exacerbate the problem. As thornhappy pointed out, atmospheric temperature inversions tend to trap smog close to the ground in the Bay Area, an effect that is often more pronounced on colder nights. The hills also act as a pollution trapping basin in calm weather, also common on colder nights.

Fireplaces in the Bay Area are, in general, for ambience and not heating – and the ban has exemptions for those who rely solely on wood as a heating source. Sacrificing a bit of ambience for public health is not an unreasonable request. Residents are already asked to voluntarily refrain from wood fires on days when conditions are conducive to smog (approx. 20 days/winter), but the requests are too often ignored, creating an easily avoidable air quality problem. A ban would simply make the existing requests on those days enforceable with fines.

See the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's website for some more information on the reasons behind the ban:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/wood_burning/

A San Jose Mercury News story on the proposal:
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_7382912

Note that there is no objection to gas fireplaces, only wood burning ones. In fact, Santa Clara County is happy to pay you a bit to convert your wood fireplace into a gas one. (I believe other area municipalities have similar programs.)
http://www.sparetheair.org/changeout.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
I won't rest until we get a ban on cows farting.


Careful, I'm sure the vegetarian lobby will propose a "solution" if you give them any ideas... =)




OrionTheWolf -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 8:05:32 PM)

Fast reply:

Cost of living is way too high in San Fran. Would rather live close to Atlanta, so I can have five times as much home, or a home the same size for a fifth of the price. Live out a ways from the city, but it is less than a 45 min drive there.

Orion




cyberdude611 -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 8:57:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Because SF is one of the most amazing and vibrant cities on earth and considering you on on a bdsm board, the reasons should be obvious.  Dungeons open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, munches every day of the week, more bdsm groups than  you can name, home to many of the best bdsm authors, home to many of the kink friendly professionals, and a city that allows the takeover of an entire blvd so 10s of thousands of perverts can have a giant play party in the street.

Yeah, fucking awful place to live alright!


You forgot to mention that you also have the highest homeless population in the USA.




thompsonx -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 9:09:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Because SF is one of the most amazing and vibrant cities on earth and considering you on on a bdsm board, the reasons should be obvious.  Dungeons open 24 hours a day 7 days a week, munches every day of the week, more bdsm groups than  you can name, home to many of the best bdsm authors, home to many of the kink friendly professionals, and a city that allows the takeover of an entire blvd so 10s of thousands of perverts can have a giant play party in the street.

Yeah, fucking awful place to live alright!


You forgot to mention that you also have the highest homeless population in the USA.

cyberdude:
Los Angeles has about ten times as many homeless as San Francisco.  New York and Chicago also have higher homeless populations.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/home-o17.shtml
thompson




petdave -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 9:56:06 PM)

Wow, Californians are still allowed to play with fire? i thought they banned matches around the same time they outlawed metal scissors, and replaced all the pencils and pens with chunky crayons [:-] Oh well. i hear that fire is totally boogie anyway... everybody's who's anybody is using the new USB-powered iHeaters.




Estring -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:18:35 PM)

Well, San Franciscans will have to get permission from their pets before anything can be done.[;)]




GoddessMine -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:21:35 PM)

Julie: Pebbles, dear - can I outlaw fireplaces? They're antiquated and ugly, and pretty much useless in the yay. Only slackjawed yokels and their inbreds in hotlanta need 'em to warm their twenty kids or so. And midwesteners all look like characters from Fargo. Pussy?

Pebbles: meow

Love,
GM




OrionTheWolf -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:40:01 PM)

Not many of those around here. Do you have alot of experience with inbredding?

Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessMine

Julie: Pebbles, dear - can I outlaw fireplaces? They're antiquated and ugly, and pretty much useless in the yay. Only slackjawed yokels and their inbreds in hotlanta need 'em to warm their twenty kids or so. And midwesteners all look like characters from Fargo. Pussy?

Pebbles: meow

Love,
GM




GoddessMine -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:45:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not many of those around here. Do you have alot of experience with inbredding?

Orion


Case closed.

Love,
GM




Estring -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:47:27 PM)

It's so cute how 22 year olds think they know everything isn't it?[;)]




GoddessMine -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:51:01 PM)

BLARGETTY BLARGH BLARGH!

I do know everything. God told Me so. A lot is two words and it's inbreeding, ya bastard.

Love,
GM




LadySeraphina -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:51:55 PM)

E-string, I'm not sure why you are mocking GM. Is this something in general, rather than relating to the two posts I see here? Personally, I thought the first was amusing, and the second was entirely accurate. Just wondering if I missed something.




Estring -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:55:27 PM)

If you are seeing only two posts, you are missing quite a bit.




popeye1250 -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:58:27 PM)

"First Prize, one week in San Francisco!"

"Second Prize, two weeks in San Francisco."




GoddessMine -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 10:59:14 PM)

Sighhhh, it's alright LadySeraphina - I, the beautiful one with all the answers, am quite used to the berating I receive on this board. After all, Jesus was mocked, was he not?

Oh, My soul is so, so weary...

Love,
GM





BLARARHGHGHGHETTTYY!




LadySeraphina -> RE: San Francisco considers ban on fireplaces (11/25/2007 11:02:12 PM)

Lol, GM. Frankly, I've been amused at the posts of yours that I've read, in this and other threads. If popeye can be offensive, why can't someone give it back to him? I think the issue is those who don't appreciate wry sarcasm from young ladies.

E-String, I simply didn't think you were bothering to mock her for everything she posted in this thread, only the last two. *shrug* Everyone is entitled to their opinions - you, her, popeye - oh, and me too.

Lady Seraphina

Edited for clarity.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125