- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:29 am to MATTG0302
quote:
Which one do you feel deserves a payment?
the one that owns the camp should get reimbursed for taxes and/or fees associated with the camp
the fisherman who had his favorite fishing area closed for a few months doesn't deserve anything
that is absurd
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:30 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:= North BR. Not affected. Your opinion is useless in this matter.
Feliciana
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:30 am to Salmon
From what I can tell (and I still can't verify that these recreational fishermen checks are true), BP is doing this of their own volition. They did not obligate themselves to this in the settlement agreement.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:30 am to CootDisCootDat
This whole shitshow is about people who weren't affected.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:32 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
frick all of those people who work for them and all the jobs they bring this state!
Not what I said. But when you make deadly decisions in an effort to pad the bottom line, you pay the fricking price. I don't give a frick if you are BP , GE, a mom and pop grocery or the Pope himself.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:32 am to boom roasted
quote:
BP is doing this of their own volition.
right
still doesn't matter
Vibram paid out a huge lawsuit because of false health claims. If you could prove that you have ever owned a pair of Vibrams, they would reimburse you. I have owned several pairs of Vibrams over the years, but I loved them and never had problem with them. I could have got about $300 for the shoes that I had owned, but I'm not a piece of shite, so I didn't take the free money for no reason.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:32 am to Salmon
quote:And like I said earlier, oftentimes there is no mechanism for these people to be reimbursed.
the one that owns the camp should get reimbursed for taxes and/or fees associated with the camp
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:32 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
From what I can tell (and I still can't verify that these recreational fishermen checks are true), BP is doing this of their own volition. They did not obligate themselves to this in the settlement agreement.
You are correct.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:33 am to Salmon
quote:Nerd.
I have owned several pairs of Vibrams
And your analogy is a bit off. Vibrams never negatively affected you. The spill absolutely negatively affected recreational fishermen.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 10:35 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:35 am to Salmon
Vibrams .... 
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:36 am to boom roasted
quote:
The spill absolutely negatively affected recreational fishermen.
because they could't fish in their favorite spot for a bit? please
and plenty have said "I fit the criteria, why would't I take the free money?"
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:36 am to Salmon
quote:Do you not see that as being negatively affected?
because they could't fish in their favorite spot for a bit? please
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:37 am to Salmon
quote:
Vibrams
you're a trashy POS for wearing those ugly things. see how it works?
I'm just kidding dudes. I only judge people that wear white shades and crocs.Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:37 am to Salmon
It's the same as people who flop around on the ground after a fender bender.
It's a shite move and I don't associate with people who do such things. Just because you can does not mean you should.
It's a shite move and I don't associate with people who do such things. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:38 am to boom roasted
quote:
Do you not see that as being negatively affected?
barely
I'm trying to think of other scenarios that fit this
say if I had a hunting camp and the neighboring property was set on fire and it burned my woods down so that I couldn't hunt that hunting season at my camp
would I expect the neighbor to pay me? of course not
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:40 am to MATTG0302
quote:None, actually.
Ok, So your an average fisherman who just so happens to own a camp in the affected area. On average you make 3 fishing trips a month.
or
Your an above average fisherman who fished the exact same area but 6 times a month. Does not own a camp.
Which one do you feel deserves a payment?
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:40 am to Salmon
This might be the only way for camp owners to be reimbursed for their expenses. If they want to go this route to accomplish that, go for it.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:41 am to OTIS2
quote:What were these, and who made them?
But when you make deadly decisions in an effort to pad the bottom line, you pay the fricking price.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:41 am to boom roasted
even when they couldn't fish
they could still go to their camps, they could still go boating, and they could still fish, just not keep the fish
they could still go to their camps, they could still go boating, and they could still fish, just not keep the fish
Page 7 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News