As Predicted, Hope Chickens Out

Hope is a typical progressive coward. She has no chance in a fair fight, so she chickened out of the interview will do her standard backstabbing.

ScreenHunter_7783 Mar. 07 18.10

Steve/Tony, you posted a very misleading article about me on your blog. You know you truncated the convo to be misleading … added in some ad hom and there you go .. your work!!
Then you accuse me of poor metal health .. when it is you who can not understand that I can’t stop people from downloading a youtube video nor can or should I be held responsible when they do.
I’ve also spent 2 hours now scouring the net through focused filter for ANY mention of ANY interview with you and find ZERO.
Case closed.
You’re toast.
Convo over.

Await the truth coming out.

If she thinks I haven’t done any interviews, I should be a pushover for her.  ROFLMAO.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to As Predicted, Hope Chickens Out

  1. gator69 says:

    Hang this lying POS with her own words Tony.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      I don’t know gator69. I think he should just let her and her half dozen fans go entertain each other with stories of their bravery while the rest of us use our time more wisely.

      • gator69 says:

        Excusing or ignoring bad behaviour only begets more. I have always found the best way to defeat a bully is to lay him out in the street for all to see,

        • Hope says:

          This from a person who repeatedly call me a lying piece of sh.it bitch who should shut the f ck up .. for trying to help you with the truth …

          Maybe someone else here can tell us how this guy pumped Range’s production gas into his water well to fool the EPA, as Gator and range Resources claim??

        • gator69 says:

          Can you find a court of law refuting the Lipsky Fraud you lying POS?

          The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.

          Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.

          http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf

        • gator69 says:

          Hopeski enjoys lying and revels in her ignorance, like it is some kind of an award or badge of honor.

        • Hope says:

          So, what you have posted over and over .. to prove that you don’t forward industry talking points – is Range’s accusations against their water contamination victim.

          Of course they are court docs, Range is in an ongoing, as yet UNHEARD case against the Lipskys.

          Thank you for proving my thesis that well trained deniers post fossil fuel industry propaganda.

        • gator69 says:

          Hope you ignorant bitch.

          Range is not the 43rd Judicial District Court.

          Stop lying, if you can. 😆

      • Hope says:

        Like posting Range Resources accusations 16X on one thread … as you work to prove you do not repeat fossil fuel industry talking points?

        • gator69 says:

          It’s not Range you f’g idiot, it is the Texas courts.

          The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.

          Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.

          http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf

        • R. Shearer says:

          Like Hope, it’s like not cool to commit fraud. Dig it?

        • Anto says:

          What part of this photo don’t you understand?

        • Anto says:

          What part of this summary of the facts don’t you understand?

          “The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”

  2. Steve,

    She’s not just “AGW crazy.”

    This woman is literally insane. Paranoid schizo. Delusions of oppression by hostile unseen forces.

    The more space you can put from her, the better.

    God bless you for trying!

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    “You’re toast”….??? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ROFLMAO ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    what a typical self important libtwat. This silly cow should go back to school and finish her degree in underwater basket weaving. ha ha ha ha ha ha

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      And learn to use apostrophes correctly. I must, however, say that most people misuse this punctuation mark these days.

  4. Hope says:

    Can any of you discern if the emails I posted match his claims about our emails?

    I’m curious if any of you can parse this data:

    Also, can ANY of YOU understand that I can not agree to stop people from downloading the interview from youtube? I know you can!

    “”It is unacceptable that the interview is edited” Steve/Tony
    HOW exactly DID YOU expect to keep OTHERS from recording a livestream?? ” Me
    _______________________________________
    Steve/Tony’s reply: “I expect our discussion to remain intact, streamed live, and be posted on YouTube for posterity. I’ve seen the work you and your friends do. You cut and paste to create lies and trash people. It is dishonest, cowardly and disgusting behavior, and I am not going to enable it.”
    ____________________________________________
    MY reply: “”You started this discussion with some of the most viscous attacks I have ever seen.” Steve/Tony
    Please cite that (third time I’ve asked), I would like to see what you are calling “vicious”.
    Yes – you said that – HOW WILL you S T O P O T H E R S from recording and manipulating the livestream .. is my repeated question ..

    Also if you look at my work, I think you’ll see I actually don’t post much like that .. as opposed to people like Phelim Mcaleer who make their living doing that.
    I’m more than happy to be the first to livestream an interview with you….
    or maybe you can still clear up your claim that you do this “all of the time’ when in fact you can’t produce one shred of evidence that is true??

    (2) ” and be posted on YouTube for posterity.” Ok .. I missed that .. once you put it on youtube you know any dork can download and process it?

    THAT you don’t mind???
    _______________________________________________
    Steve/Tony:
    I want you to put a prominent disclaimer up that the video is intended to remain intact, unedited, and that any other usage is dishonest and not authorized. I want clearly stated verbal expectations that this is intended to be an honest discussion, not propaganda. I also want the discussion to begin with a disclosure by both of us of any energy industry ties, organized political ties, and funding sources.
    __________________________________________________________
    Hope:
    Anyone can use the material for non-profit, educational purposes only, even if we put that disclaimer.
    Your side is just as likely to misuse it as mine .. look at the work of Phelim Mcaleer, etc… yet I have no such requirements, nor does anyone else make such requirements.
    And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”. I count 9 times I’ve asked now.
    ” I also want the discussion to begin with a disclosure by both of us of any energy industry ties, organized political ties, and funding sources.”
    Not a problem for me. I think your funding come from selling the talking points on your website, it doesn’t change the fact that you are a well trained fossil fuel industry talking points repeater.
    What I will do in the interview is go over the origin of the talking points you use, and allow you to explain how you came up with them apart from ever hearing them at Watts or from Heartland, SPPI etc. You can tell us how you came to this thinking in the conservative media vacuum you claim you live in.
    It will be GREAT!
    ALSO IF I put that disclaimer I will state “Steve/Tony Requires” this .. I have no such requirement. ____________________________________________________
    S/T:
    Good. I want the disclaimer clearly displayed. I want a live link at the time of the interview too, so that I can verify it is being broadcast. I have zero trust in the integrity of climate alarmists, because I don’t think most of you have any.

    You are going to be quite surprised with I pop your bubble of ignorance and prejudice. There are many very bad people in this debate – and they are all on your side.
    ____________________________________________________
    Hope:
    “and be posted on YouTube for posterity”
    So you understand once I post it on yourtube, anyone can use it for non-profit educational purposes. And you seem ok w/ that.
    And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”.
    I count 10 times I’ve asked now.
    I’d like to see that context, thanks.
    _________________________________________________________
    S/T:
    I have explained my terms and conditions. What part of that isn’t clear for you? I expect you to write a permanently displayed and clear disclaimer that the interview is intended to be kept intact, and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Hope:
    Yes, and I have said said repeatedly – that does NOT LEGALLY STOP people from USING THE CONTENT for NON- PROFIT, EDUCATIONAL purposes!!
    You are a well known name. It is Impossible legally and reasonably that the disclaimer you ask for will stop people using the interview!
    What part of that isn’t clear for you?
    And I have no such requirement, so I will make it clear that it is you alone who thinks they have the power to stop people from using the interview for educational, non-profit citation. I’m not going to defend your inane request.
    “And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”. ”
    I count 11 times I’ve asked now.
    _______________________________________________________________
    S/T:
    Is it possible for you to simply do what I ask without applying your defective interpretations?
    The interview will not turn out as you hope, and you and your nutty friends will try to chop and spin it into something it wasn’t. I wan’t to be completely clear that you are being total slimeballs for doing that.
    If you think I am lying about doing interviews, please bring it up in our live talk.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Hope:
    “Is it possible for you to simply do what I ask without applying your defective interpretations?”
    Is it possible for you to work up some reason?
    ” and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.”
    I can’t take responsibility for making sure no one uses the footage. Neither do I support trying to ban people from using the material for non-profit educational purposes. I will not be responsible for it’s use.
    I am willing to do the interview and discuss and post the “Steve/Tony says you can’t use this material for any reason, even non-profit educational purposes” warning on the video. But I’ll not be held responsible for what will undoubtedly occur – people will download and use the footage.
    I want in writing from you that I am not responsible for the content once posted on youtube. We have NO agreement about it’s use.
    ” I wan’t to be completely clear that you are being total slimeballs for doing that.”
    Is that a sentence? Please translate. Doing what?
    I won’t do the interview unless you produce citation showing these many other interviews you have already done. Context. I’ve asked 12 times now.
    ____________________________________________________
    S/T:
    You are looking for material to hack into a hit piece. I won’t provide that for you.
    ___________________________________________________
    Hope:
    No, I am trying to help you to see reality.You asked me to make an agreement with you that no one can or should make. You seem unable to access simple critical thinking – anyone can reuse the material and it’s inappropriate to imagine I can stop them or should be held responsible if they do.
    I also understand you fibbed about previous interviews. I can imagine now why there may be none.
    Offer stands, I’d be happy to be the first to post an interview of you. I will add the disclaimer to the entire video and give it context (I myself do not even agree with it). We can do a live skype I record (and anyone else watching CAN also), I will post it as you requested on youtube with the disclaimer.
    I will NOT be held responsible when people laugh at the idea that you can stop them using the material and they will use the material. That’s the real world Steve/Tony. (again, it would be great if you could just answer what you go by)
    __________________________________________________________

    >>>> Are any of YOU willing to agree to make sure no one uses the interview anywhere on the globe at any time for any reason or YOU will be held responsible?? <<<<<<

  5. ossqss says:

    I hope this works ….

    • Hope says:

      Steve/Tony claims he does interviews “all the time” .. is that an interview?

      • gator69 says:

        Where is your court refutation of fraud by your sources? Idiot.

        The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.

        Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.

        http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf

        • Hope says:

          The case has never been heard .. ad infinatum ……

          You have done a great job though of proving that no manner of fact can aide a poor denier indoctrinated by FF industry propaganda.

          http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/

        • gator69 says:

          This case is settled.

          “The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
          “In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
          “While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”

          http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup

        • Hope says:

          Yes – you posted that over and over .. and over and over you have seen the actual flame of the actual water contamination ….

          even if you see with your own eyes the facts … you can not face them.

          http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/

        • gator69 says:

          You mean video, like what Lipsky faked?

          “The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
          “In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
          “While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”

          http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup

          Lipsky is your go to guy right? 😆

        • Hope says:

          “This case is settled.” gator69

          In your mind only – because fossil fuel industry propaganda told you so:

          “The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument on December 4, 2014. The issues that will be determined by the Supreme Court are: (1) whether the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act requires heightened proof – clear and specific evidence – of each essential element of a claim under that Act, and if so, (2) whether Range presented clear and specific evidence of defamation and business-disparagement claims.”

          http://www.texasattorneyblog.com/2015/01/fracing_case_goes_to_texas_sup.html

        • gator69 says:

          Again Hope, you ignorant bitch. This is not my opinion, but the considered opinion of the 43rd Judicial District Court.

          Do you have a court that overturned this, or are you the lying alarmist shill you have proven yourself to be? 😆

          “The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
          “In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
          “While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”

          http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup

    • Brad says:

      It won’t. She’s too far gone. It’s an odd thing to witness the outright idiotic claim from one person to another that the individual is closed minded when the claimant demonstrates the very thing they are claiming in the other person. “Let me interview you so I can open your mind because it is closed and mine is not.”

      • Hope says:

        In fact, Steve required that I be responsible for making sure no one downloaded the video from youtube and used it for any reason.

        ” and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.”
        I can’t take responsibility for making sure no one uses the footage. Neither do I support trying to ban people from using the material for non-profit educational purposes. I will not be responsible for it’s use.”

        Would YOU agree to that?

        • gator69 says:

          I agree you are a lying bitch, and I can prove it.

          “The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
          “In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
          “While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”

          http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup

        • Hope says:

          “Again Hope, you ignorant bitch. This is not my opinion, but the considered opinion of the 43rd Judicial District Court.” Gator

          It is a ruling that allowed the case to go forward … for the umpteenth time.

          Not that facts are of any use to you:

          “The case, In re Lipsky, is pending before the court.”

          Read more: http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202678784008/High-Court-Case-of-First-Impression-Involves-Fracking-Defamation-Claims-and-AntiSLAPP-Law#ixzz3U2lqpsjF

        • gator69 says:

          Lying bitch, it is a court document that reads as follows…

          The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.

          Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.

          http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.””

          How THICK are you that you don’t understand that this is FRAUD !!

          Or is it just part of the normal way you and your ilk operate.. fraud everyday !!

          There are also reports of gas coming from water pipes in some areas LONG BEFORE fracking was even heard of.

          Its all a fabrication and a fraud, as PROVEN.

          You truly are ugly to the very core of your being (i won’t say “soul”, because I don’t think you have one.). !!

        • Is it possible for you to simply do what I ask without applying your defective interpretations?

        • Classic Warmist Tactic.
          When caught out in a lie…change the subject….works every time!

    • ossqss says:

      Hope, what is the saturation point with respect to CO2 and LWR?

      Just curious.

  6. Hope says:

    “I agree you are a lying bitch, and I can prove it.” gator

    So you realize when people click on your link – that you have posted no 20X … the cite is not there .. what you have a cite to is the list of documents YOU should be reading …..

    can you CITE the ACTUAL doc you are pasting from, Gator?

    Could it be Range’s ALLEGATION? Nah .. you’re not a well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda repeater .. right?

    “The Texas Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Range Resources Corp.’s petition to reverse a decision throwing out the bulk of its defamation claims against Texas homeowners ”

    http://www.law360.com/articles/570288/texas-high-court-takes-up-fracking-defamation-fight

    Could that have been the writ that you never read …?

    Does that say the allegations were thrown out?

    You actually know nothing about this case:

    proof: Who first lit the gas in the water on fire?

    It is not possible you can answer that … or HOW Lipsky stole range’s gas to FOOL the EPA … if you notice you’ve actually never discussed the case .. just screamed that you are right and called me a bitch …..

    … you will simply span the same cites you have been over and over because that is all you have,

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Well, gator after doing a bit of looking. I have to agree with the court the gas came from the hydrocarbon producing Strawn formation.

    Ranger was drilling 2,300 feet from the water well. Ranger Resources Drilling in Barnett and Marcellus Shale

    “The Barnet Shale is about at 8900 to 8400 feet deep along highway 380 in between Denton and Decatur Texas.”http://www.thebarnettshale.com/

    “The Strawn formation consists principally of sharp-grained, moderately hard, evenly-textured sandstones, alternating with beds of blue clays… [sound like a no -go for fracking]… In the northern region (Millsap, Parker County) the lower exposed part is composed principally of blue and black clays, little sandstone, and occasional thin beds of limestone and sandy shale…. The Strawn formation is exposed in central Texas, principally in Mills and San Saba countines… The whole thickness of the formation, which can only be measured in central Texas is more than four thousand feet.” Bulletin of the University of Texas,

    Parker County is where Lipsky is.

    “The Strawn Formation is one of the more enigmatic hydrocarbon producing formations on the Eastern Shelf of the Midland Basin….The core is composed of 22 high-frequency shallowing-upward cycles. Each cycle begins with a black, fissile shale or black argillaceous lime mudstone containing and open marine fauna….Each cycle is capped by grain-rich packstones or skeletal grainstones. These grain-rich facies represent the primary reservoir facies in the Strawn Formation.”Reservoir Characterization of the Strawn

    “Jun 20, 2014 … Gas from the Strawn formation could have even migrated into the Range Resources well … EPA Withdraws Order Against Natural Gas Driller.”
    http://www.texastribune.org/2014/06/20/questions-linger-about-parker-countys-tainted-wate/

    With the EPA very anti-CO2 stance there is no way they would drop this case unless the evidence in favor of Ranger was so overwhelming it would make the EPA look like fools.

    • NancyG says:

      And Gail beat me to it. Oh, and the head of that region of the EPA was Al Armendariz.

      Found this about him: Armendariz came under fire and was forced to resign after a video surfaced showing him likening his approach at the EPA to Roman conquerors who used crucifixion to deter dissent.

  8. “… I’ve also spent 2 hours now scouring the net through focused filter for ANY mention of ANY interview with you and find ZERO. …” Focused filter searching is what makes me as successful as I am when it comes to digging up hidden material on the smear of skeptics. HopeFerPeace here is probably not especially adept at doing that kind of search. Using the word “podcast” in my brief search a short time ago, I turned up an Alex Epstein interview of Tony I wasn’t aware of inside of 30 seconds of searching.

    Folks can structure searches to find or not find basically anything. Naomi Oreskes is infamous for that stunt. Blogger Robert Grumbine tried that as well way back in 2008 ( http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html ), going through a mindlessly tedious hours-long method of seeing whether any AGU Fellows had signed the Oregon Petition Project, ultimately declaring “0 of the 183 AGU Fellows I’ve checked so far have signed the petition”, as part of his intended agenda of trashing the petition. Inside of 10 minutes, I found two AGU Fellows who’d signed it, and around another half dozen within a half hour.

    So, all HopeFerPeace is doing here is displaying the larger contrast in the global warming issue where believers push beliefs using false premises as ‘evidence’, where skeptics use empirical evidence.

  9. Stephen Fisher says:

    Well…we’ve had change…and now we have Hope.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s