TK was exactly right. OT
Bill C
with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
right on the money.
Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
"significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
<more there>
Bill C
RicodJour
That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
you're awarding the medal...
R
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:9178567b-ebb9-4abb...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Agreed. Biofuels, when not derived from waste product, are an abomination
and an insult to humanity. The idea that it's more important to feed our
cars than our mouths... what could be more absurd? And not only do the
economics not work out, but it's tough to show that you're actually gaining
energy too, after you factor in everything that goes into growing crops.
But as you say, what does this have to do with awarding points to TK? His
attitude is simply that global warming itself is a myth. The only reason
he'd care about biofuels is if it puts cheaper gas into his tank. Not that
there's anything wrong with that concept, to a point.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Bill C
>
> That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> you're awarding the medal...
>
> R- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
discussion. Just about everyone insisted that biofuels had no, or
negligible impact on worldwide food resources.
So much for my troll index with the first troll in ages.
Bill C
Kurgan Gringioni
> On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> discussion.
<snip>
Dumbass -
You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
It's a given: if corn is used for a non-food purpose, there will be
less corn for food. Duh.
And no, I don't support corn based ethanol subsidies.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
RicodJour
> On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > discussion.
>
>
> It's a given: if corn is used for a non-food purpose, there will be
> less corn for food. Duh.
>
> And no, I don't support corn based ethanol subsidies.
You're getting soft in your old age. I don't support corn based corn
subsidies, corn fed beef, beef fed beef and lots of other it-seemed-
like-a-good-idea-at-the-time idiocies.
R
SLAVE of THE STATE
> And no, I don't support corn based ethanol subsidies.
You don't have a choice but to support them.
I support afternoon training rides, but not willingly.
SLAVE of THE STATE
Could I get you to support killing piggies and destroying crops? Such
policies grow the middle class.
Could I get you to support "old"-age retirement benefits? You know,
if less people are producing, then more will be produced. That will
grow the middle class.
Less is more, you know.
"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
--- George Orwell, "1984"
SLAVE of THE STATE
> That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed.
It was made light of.
Bob Schwartz
> "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
> --- George Orwell, "1984"
"Cadence is a red herring."
--- Benjamin Franklin
RicodJour
> On Jun 19, 11:54 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > > It's a given: if corn is used for a non-food purpose, there will be
> > > less corn for food. Duh.
>
> > > And no, I don't support corn based ethanol subsidies.
>
> > You're getting soft in your old age. I don't support corn based corn
> > subsidies, corn fed beef, beef fed beef and lots of other it-seemed-
> > like-a-good-idea-at-the-time idiocies.
>
> Could I get you to support killing piggies and destroying crops? Such
> policies grow the middle class.
If you're talking about killing my toes, no. If you're talking about
reducing the cultivated biomass, yes. Too many people anyway.
> Could I get you to support "old"-age retirement benefits? You know,
> if less people are producing, then more will be produced. That will
> grow the middle class.
You could get me to support Logan's Run-esque culling of the naked ape
herd.
> Less is more, you know.
You're telling this to a group of bike racing dweebs, whose idea of
physical perfection looks much like it walked out of Auschwitz, and
who obsess over extra grams of weight on their bikes? Why?
R
RicodJour
wrote:
Cadence was the only quasi-acceptable Charlie Sheen movie.
- me
R
Fred Fredburger
Tom's not always wrong, but he too frequently adopts a shotgun approach.
Throws a whole bunch of arguments out at once, then switches back and
forth between them.
Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.
SLAVE of THE STATE
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.
If the we-meme operates strongly enough, then confusion is not erased
but automatically bypassed.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Kun-Kun claimed that greenies wanted to fight global
warming by taking drastic measures that would genocidally
kill off many people in the third world. Eventually, I think he
explained that this would happen because greenies ->
biofuels -> increase in crop prices. Since biofuels are
neither a serious proposed solution to global warming nor
particularly beloved by greenies anymore (ADM,
Supermarket to the World likes them though), this had an
definite whiff of the Chewbacca Defense.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/3ab7886166c64ad1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/bab7a46983dcaf1c
Ben
Donald Munro
As a sponsor at least you don't need to worry about your image
if your primates train on enhanced mineral water.
ST
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You guys are so full of crap and yourselves!
HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels shit is gonna take all the corn the
USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"
RicodJour
>
> HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels shit is gonna take all the corn the
> USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"
That's only part of it. The rest of the world is going to plow under
their crops, plant corn and make ethanol and starve themselves. That
should take some of the guilt off of the fat white guys and put it on
some fat black guys. I feel ever so much better!
R
Fred Fredburger
Yep. Works that way with the them-meme too, though.
Bill C
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > discussion.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
>
> K. Gringioni.
Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
problem. It's pretty rare when TK is right on the money, but he could
point out that the road we're riding on is basically black, and
usually rational folks would line up to say he's wrong.
I was in the "We'll have to see camp, I'm not sure." because
historically the problem has not been a lack of food, it's been one of
distribution, transport, and politics. I'm still not sure that ethanol
is sucking off enough of the excess production (Our govt. is still
paying folks to NOT grow crops) to cause a disaster. I'd guess a much
bigger problem is the cost spikes due to the cost of oil. Modern
farming, and transport, is incredibly dependent on petroleum and it's
price.
It's easier to go after biofuels than the folks producing the oil,
and the huge national taxes most places that are on top of that.
Bill C
Bill C
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem.p of that.
<<snipped>>
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wanted to exclude Howard from that group though. What TK gets back
from him is what he's asked for. Just the fact that Howard "is" seems
to send Tom off the deep end.
Bill C
RicodJour
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem. It's pretty rare when TK is right on the money, but he could
> point out that the road we're riding on is basically black, and
> usually rational folks would line up to say he's wrong.
So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that TK cries wolf a lot, and
then when there's an actual wolf he gets the same shit? Wow - never
could have imagined that happening! ;)
> I was in the "We'll have to see camp, I'm not sure." because
> historically the problem has not been a lack of food, it's been one of
> distribution, transport, and politics. I'm still not sure that ethanol
> is sucking off enough of the excess production (Our govt. is still
> paying folks to NOT grow crops) to cause a disaster. I'd guess a much
> bigger problem is the cost spikes due to the cost of oil. Modern
> farming, and transport, is incredibly dependent on petroleum and it's
> price.
> It's easier to go after biofuels than the folks producing the oil,
> and the huge national taxes most places that are on top of that.
If I haven't mentioned it already, and even if I did, you should read
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan. He covers food chains and the real
costs of industrial, organic and local foods. Excellent reading.
R
Paul G.
> On 6/19/08 9:47 AM, in article Q4w6k.9084$xZ.9...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com,
>
>
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
He MAY have said something LIKE THAT, but he didn't say THAT. Don't
put something in quotes unless it's truly a quote.
On the other hand, a cursory search turns up a different poster who
was "exactly right":
"Discussion subject changed to "Nascar considering starving the world"
by Howard Kveck"
That was a post about NASCAR considering a switch to ethanol.
-Paul
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > discussion.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem.
Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.
TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.
There are reasons to advocate limited use of biodiesel
and so on, but it's not gonna affect global warming
very much, and it's not the same thing as corn-based
ethanol making the farm lobby rich and driving up
the price of food.
If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
what you're criticizing.
Ben
Bill C
wrote:
>
> If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> what you're criticizing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.
You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
Bill C
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:03 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> > that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> > with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> > what you're criticizing.
> >
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
> though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
> again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
> before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.
Then make the point, Bill. Why should Ben be expected to go find things to prove
*your* statement that everyone treated Kunich like an idiot for saying that the trend
toward use of biofuel had drawbacks. The main reason that is a nonstarter as an
argument is that Kunich didn't actually say anything like that. Ben is corrrect to
point out that he (TK) was raving about how biofuel stuff was going to cause mass
genocide and liberals/progressives didn't care. In other words, Kunich was being his
usual hysterical self. You know, if he'd said, "I think that the redirection of corn
and soy to the biofuel industry might have consequences for less priviliged people in
the Third World" he would have gotten little disagreement. But he had to go into
full-on drama queen mode and say things like, "There you have it as I was predicting.
Guilt ridden middle class white men are planning on starving the world in order to
pretend that they're going to fight world use of oil and global warming." Oh, and
that was a mild one for him.
Anyway, as for the biofuel/food isue: One point is that in Asia, the price of rice
is skyrocketing due to a limited supply (for example, drought has destroyed
Australia's rice industry, leading to the closure of the largest rice mill in the
Southern Hemisphere). This is *not* due to anything to do with biofuels. Rice does
not convert into biofuel, although the ricestraw has shown possibilities (and
ricestraw is a leftover from the harvest). Additionally, the land that rice is grown
on is very rarely converted into use by other crops, as it's unsuitable for such
things as corn (or pretty much anything but rice).
Another point is that the price of corn in Mexico and South America has been going
up for several years. This isn't due to them converting over to the use of corn as a
biofuel, as it started happening at least five or six years ago and there was no
corn/biofuel industry there then (and not much now). Brazil uses sugar cane for its
biofuel ethanol.
There are certainly a number of liberals/progressives calling for greater use of
biofuel but the driving force is companies like ADM. They get huge subsidies for
growing corn for biofuel. The subsidies they got for simply growing corn is one
reason why corn producers in Africa are out of business: food aid does not show up as
dollars, to be spent were the receiving country chooses (like buying from local
sources). It invariably is set up to show up as a comodity, sourced from here. And
that means subsidised ADM corn.
> You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
No, he's not. Strawman.
Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the road is basically
black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more than everyone
combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that shit. He continues
to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in the air where
airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?
--
tanx,
Howard
The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:
<snip>
Dumbass -
Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).
If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.
Eventually the problem is going to be solved. There will be some
backwards looking oil companies that won't like it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
> He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF
Dumbass -
That's his engineering degree?!
omg. hahahahahahahahahaha!
Jesus.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Bill C
> I
>
> > You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> No, he's not. Strawman.
>
it off into TK's genocide rant.
> Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the road is basically
> black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
> overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
> know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more than everyone
> combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that shit. He continues
> to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
> conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
> been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
> place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
> expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
> everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in the air where
> airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> The bloody pubs are bloody dull
> The bloody clubs are bloody full
> Of bloody girls and bloody guys
> With bloody murder in their eyes
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
may do that.
Going back through and rereading everything, it's my memory that's
faulty in detail. You and Ben are much closer to accurate. The attacks
were on him, his sources, etc...not directly at the actual argument.
Thanks for the civil slap upside the head, and forcing me to go get
it right.
I did get something great out of it, other than the correction.
I'd missed this bit:
The stuff at the end of the thread, from D-y is truly classic, and
highlights your points Howard. Maybe a bit subtle, since it doesn't
accuse you, and anyone left of Attila the Hun of wanting to
exterminate life on the planet, but it's good.
I'm sorry I missed it because it, instantly, brought back memories of
driving for miles with no lights since the electrical system was
terrible, but would generate enough electricity to keep the fuel pump
going and things like that if you shut off the lights for quite a
while before it cut out totally. Several alternators and other
charging system components just prolonged the agony.
The final and, for me, fatal flaw, (D-y's Chevy "three on the tree"
linkage bit is SO accurate you KNOW he's been there), was the at the
shifter in the Rabbit was held into the tunnel by a plastic gimbal
which allowed the stick to float and shift. Not a good idea to have
the pivot point, and sole support for the shifter to be made of cheap
plastic.
I was at a busy set of lights, headed for elctrical parts, pretty
pissed off, and when the light changed I slapped it into first. I'd
had it in neutral, revving it, hoping to see some charging activity,
no luck there. When I did the shifter shot through the floor, out onto
the ground taking the "leather" boot and all with it.
Can you say "red faced"? Even with replacement plastic parts this
continued to be a problem. Most likely due to worn shit holding the
gimbal assembly. It wasn't worth detailed troubleshooting after the
new one did the same thing after a while.
PS I really do hate it when I run with something from memory, and end
up red faced, again. I keep saying "That'll teach me", but it doesn't
seem to work. And yes I would expect people who claim to be better
than him to say "You got it right on this one." when he, or anyone
else does. Even the blind squirrell gets credit for finding a nut once
in a while. I keep being told it's worse when we do it because we are
supposed to be better, so I'd say that applies here too.
IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
much less provocation.
I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
does it apart, it validates their integrity.
It's easy to laud someone you like, it's much harder to give
recognition to someone you don't, particularly someone who attacks
you, but it's the right thing to do IMO, and makes you a better, more
credible person for being able to do it.
It really doesn't cost anything to give credit, in proportional
measure, where it's due.
My Bad
Thanks
Bill C
Bill C
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
> any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
> ethanol).
>
> If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
> products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
> Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
> they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
> science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
> are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
> bottom of an anaerobic ocean.
>
> Eventually the problem is going to be solved. There will be some
> backwards looking oil companies that won't like it.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dumbass
Ya know you're fucking up. You do it pretty often too. It's hard to
play the asshole blowhard type when you post good, well thought out,
researched, accurate shit, and solidly based opinions anytime you
aren't purposely yanking someones chain.
Monkeyboy does a lot of that too.
Bill C
Ryan Cousineau
<0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:08 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > I
> IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
> the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
> totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
> you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
> react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
> makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
> much less provocation.
TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
John Tesh CD.
> I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> does it apart, it validates their integrity.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Donald Munro
> TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
> John Tesh CD.
To be really effective you should have sent him a best of Rush
Limbaugh along with the Tesh cd. However the UN might object.
Bob Schwartz
I've got TK killfiled, so if he says something worthwhile I'll
probably miss it.
I just wish all you retards would stop following his stuff up,
so that the chance that I'd miss it would be better.
Bob Schwartz
Bill C
wrote:
> I've got TK killfiled, so if he says something worthwhile I'll
> probably miss it.
>
> I just wish all you retards would stop following his stuff up,
> so that the chance that I'd miss it would be better.
>
> Bob Schwartz
Guess you don't want the links for folks like the Traditional Values
Coalition, and the rest of those folks?
They're out there, they pay politicians and think-tanks, and they
vote. You got TK killed, but some of the shit they come up with makes
him look liberal.
People know about Westboro Baptist, but they are nothing. Lots of
groups out there, real close to them in ideology, that are
"respectable" and massively larger. Like TK they grab selected quotes,
actions, etc...to paint a distorted picture, and there is plenty of
that to use that's accurate.
Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
Bill C
Howard Kveck
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 10:08 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > I
>
> > IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
> > the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
> > totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
> > you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
> > react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
> > makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
> > much less provocation.
>
> TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
> John Tesh CD.
I still don't know what I did to you to deserve having my home sullied with that
(heh).
Howard Kveck
Kurgan Gringioni <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you think that's funny, you'll get a huge laugh out of this (for two reasons):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/630d210fe8a95a49
Robert Chung
> Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
Fred Fredburger
> Dumbass
>
> Ya know you're fucking up. You do it pretty often too. It's hard to
> play the asshole blowhard type when you post good, well thought out,
> researched, accurate shit, and solidly based opinions anytime you
> aren't purposely yanking someones chain.
> Monkeyboy does a lot of that too.
You think Henry's getting soft?
Howard Kveck
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
> TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
> wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
> of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
> That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
> information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
> here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
> may do that.
> I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> does it apart, it validates their integrity.
I see it very differently. He may have more or less said that biofuels would have
an effect on world food supplies but that wasn't the point he was making. His point
was (once again) that liberals/progressives are bad people. Based on my reading of
TK's posts, he couldn't care less if people in Africa or Asia are going hungry,
except insofar as the darkies might get mad and rise up and inconvenience him in some
way.
The two most important things in Tom's life are 1) making himself seem important,
bigger, stronger, smarter and more moral than everyone else, and 2) bashing liberals
(which is a means to the first). This is how the logic works: if the people who
advocate the use of biofuel didn't foresee that it would lead to food supply
problems, they're stupid. If those food supply issues lead to problems in less
advantaged countries, then it's a simple step to consider that "genocide" and
everyone knows genocide is evil. So the people who advocate biofuels are both stupid
and evil. That means every cause they support is equally stupid and evil. The main
thing he was trying to do was associate biofuel advocacy with was global warming and
we all know that Tom is a global warming denier. Therefore, anyone who would advocate
the use of biofuels (which in Tom's simplistic worldview is everyone who ever
disagreed with him) is an immoral global warming hysteric and liar and Tom WINS
AGAIN!!!
So saying he was right about something that was a peripheral issue to his main
point is like saying that his use of the word 'the' was right and he was correct
about whatever thing he used it in.
Bill C
> In article <0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2-8939-b92981992...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Hard to argue against your case for him using everything to further
his politics, accurate or not. He does everything you say, I'm just
not sure what's cause and what's effect.
On politics he's on the same plane as the folks trotting out Bush is
Hitler, and this is a Nazi police State hysteria we keep hearing too.
They don't want to hear the reality either, because it doesn't fit
their wishes. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, or worse.
Noone's actually listening, looking, and learning. It's all about
ideology and propaganda.
Sweden is "1984", Bob Barr is a Libertarian???? Obama says we should
be use the Nuremburg trails as a guide. Well they have been illegal
under International law for decades. Those nice tolerant EU folks who
savaged the US on immigration are doing this:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGHSDjGyjTSOztumXT57DcceQsVAD91CL8284
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_9647726
and we wont even get into McCain's complete dive into the Bush agenda.
Everyone needs an oil well in their yard, and NO you don't need no
stinkin' National Parks, they belong to the real Americans, the oil,
gas, mining, and timber companies, damnit!
I'll be not voting at all this time. Mass. will go Obama by a
landslide so JT need not fear that I'm gonna cost him the election, as
it did against Bush both times. That is a big factor in my decisions
BTW.
So TK really isn't that odd, unfortunately.
Maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all.
Bill C
Bill C
Nah, he, along with Chung are just very careful to be able to make
really solid arguments, based on solid evidence and opinions, but
Henry hasn't been playing with his toys here much lately, and Chung
just doesn't seem to be into that.
I think Monkeyboy makes the most effort to really stir the shit these
days when he pops back in, but he also knows what he's talking about,
when he bothers to have a discussion.
Bill C
Bill C
> So TK really isn't that odd, unfortunately.
> Maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just want to make sure that you know I'm NOT excusing, or minimizing
any of TKs behavior Howard. I may not have said it clearly enough, and
I agree with you almost completely. He does not allow for differing
points of view, and attacks the people, rather than the arguments they
are making.
Global warming is typical. I saw a poll today where the majority in
Britain are still unsure that humans are the primary cause, despite an
admitted campaign by the government to force this view on them. It's
impossible to argue against the warming trend credibly. it is possible
to reasonably be skeptical as to what the exact causes, and their
percentage of contribution to the trend, if any. That doesn't make
anyone a villain, despite the rhetoric from both sides, and TK is
virulent on this one.
Hysteria, propaganda, and personal attacks don't accomplish a damned
thing except to make damned sure the problem doesn't get solved, and
that works for people who exist, as public figures, and make their
money based on there being problems and hysteria they can exploit.
The only thing I know for sure is that anyone who's absolutely
convinced they are exactly right is going to be wrong in the end. I
can't count the times I've heard, and read from people who do know
things that "The more you know about anything the less sure you are,
and the more questions you have." There's always new research and
information out there and if you aren't willing to adjust to it, and
pretty damned quickly then you are ignorant, but hey it's easier to be
right when you are ignorant, no? Can't let facts, and reality
interfere with faith and ideology.
Bill C
ST
c0d6984f-ba75-4697...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "Robert
Chung" <rec...@gmail.com> wrote:
What an assbag!!
If you can't make a f*ckin Chung Chart for this you ain't got shit!!
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
Not at all. Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
used vegetable oil. It's just that right now, biofuel
mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
idea. It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
that already grow too much corn.
Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
some people will make bank.
Ben
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25274602#25274602
>
> What an assbag!!
Dumbass -
Are you talking about McCain?
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Fred Fredburger
Michael Press
<ad4ae4f9-6480-4164...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:03 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 5:17 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. Tom way
> > > > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. So I'm not sure why
> > > > > > you're awarding the medal...
> >
> > > > > > R- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > > > discussion.
> >
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > > Dumbass -
> >
> > > > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
> >
> > > Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> > > folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> > > problem.
> >
> > Then you can use the google archives to find out where
> > somebody said that.
> >
> > TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
> > mass genocide. It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
> > I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
> > advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
> any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
> ethanol).
>
> If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
> products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
> Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
> they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
> science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
> are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
> bottom of an anaerobic ocean.
That is not established. So far no laboratory has produced
petroleum from biomass. Petroleum may be biologically produced
but not from dead biomass, but from bacteria reducing methane
incorporated into the Earth when first formed. The dead
biomass theory also must explain the high pressure
of entrapped methane.
--
Michael Press
Kurgan Gringioni
> In article
> <ad4ae4f9-6480-4164-9547-0db30b2d8...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Dumbass -
Maybe not all of it. But . . .
From:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
<snip>
The Origin & Rate of Oil Formation
Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from
appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude
oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled
marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms)12 and beds of coal
(huge fossilized masses of plant debris).13 The latter is believed to
be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because
coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the
petroleum reservoir rocks.14 Thus, for example, it has been
demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown
coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their
rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar
to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days.15
<snip><end>
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Bill C
wrote:
I was being a pinhead on purpose there. I agree with you completely.
The reality is that ethanol and other biofuels are still in the
experimental stage. The reality is that this solves a batch of
political problems. It's sorta green, it's not petroleum based, it
keeps farmers working, allows them money that the pols can claim isn't
a giveaway, and keeps jobs and production American. Lots of good short
term political points to it, and maybe they'll figure out a better way
to go about it, but it takes money away from research into real,
sustainable, alternatives. I'm not baffled why we haven't put together
a worldwide Manhattan Project on fusion energy, and hydrogen fuel
cells, but it's stupid and short sighted to not be doing it. Way too
much money tied to the current system though, and lobbyists to protect
it.
McCain wants to build a whole shitload of new nuke plants, oh fucking
joy. Massive up front costs, short lifespan, no good way to handle and
store the waste, fucked up waterways used for cooling, etc...Good
plan. They just , with an idustry paid for study, decided to allow our
local plant to avoid using it's cooling tower, to save them money, and
max their profits, and just dump hotter water into the river. Don't
seem to give a shit about the river, the folks who use it, and it's
economic, and social impact as a recreation and tourism source. Goes
great with massively more oil and gas wells, especially on public
lands they can lease for $1 an acre to their friends.
It's a beautiful day to be an energy company ceo. Sucks to be us.
Guess us stupid fuckers should've tossed our beliefs, invested in
them, and cheered on Exxon-Mobil in beating the Exxon Valdez stuff in
court. Why the fuck should they have to pay for ruining the bay,
lives, etc... because they were running a single hull tanker with a
drunk Captain, and understaffed crew, not their fault.
Today just sucks.
Bill C
Paul G.
> In article
> <ad4ae4f9-6480-4164-9547-0db30b2d8...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
That abiogenic theory is accepted by only a small minority of
geologists and petroleum engineers. Most geologists view crude oil and
natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient
organic materials over geological time. "Oil started out as dead
phytoplankton on the bottom of an anaerobic ocean" is the best answer
science has come up with.
-Paul
SLAVE of THE STATE
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:38 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
> >> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
> >> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
> >> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.
>
> > If the we-meme operates strongly enough, then confusion is not erased
> > but automatically bypassed.
>
> Yep. Works that way with the them-meme too, though.
"[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...
It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Goering
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> Not at all. Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
> used vegetable oil. It's just that right now, biofuel
> mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
> early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
> many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
> idea. It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
> it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
> that already grow too much corn.
As far as CO2 emissions, the carbon cycle is far shorter for
biofuels. Even trees used/cut for heating/cooking are only 100-200
years in cycle. For something like sugar cane ethanol, the capture/
release cycle is probably less than a year. So a net emission in the
long term is near-zero for such a fuel, provided the processing does
not get supplementary energy from ultra-long cycles from things such
as fossil oil/coal/gas.
> Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
> valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
> too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> some people will make bank.
You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
ANWR flyover? No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
wants it other than oil prospectors. It essentially comes under
lockean homesteading.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On Jun 22, 9:00 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
> > Not at all. Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
> > used vegetable oil. It's just that right now, biofuel
> > mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
> > early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
> > many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
> > idea. It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
> > it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
> > that already grow too much corn.
>
> As far as CO2 emissions, the carbon cycle is far shorter for
> biofuels. Even trees used/cut for heating/cooking are only 100-200
> years in cycle. For something like sugar cane ethanol, the capture/
> release cycle is probably less than a year. So a net emission in the
> long term is near-zero for such a fuel, provided the processing does
> not get supplementary energy from ultra-long cycles from things such
> as fossil oil/coal/gas.
I haven't looked into it very deeply, but my understanding
is that is the problem - the energy costs of growing and
processing all that corn are significant and paid in fossil fuel.
Biofuel might be a good idea at some point, especially since
fossil fuels are a limited resource, but I think its present form
has problems.
If it wasn't for govmint subsidies, Midwestern corn ethanol
would be undercut by cheaper Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
Aside from the questionable environmental issues
(Brazilian clearcutting), you, Salma Hayek, and I probably all
agree on the undesirableness of these govmint subsidies.
(Obama disagrees - I'm shocked, shocked to discover that
he isn't perfect in all respects!)
> > Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> > would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> > look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> > Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
> > valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> > just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> > be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
> > too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> > some people will make bank.
>
> You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
> ANWR flyover? No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
> wants it other than oil prospectors. It essentially comes under
> lockean homesteading.
It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors. With my
"steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
lower 48. As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
landowners and other such people sometimes got
dispossessed when oil was found. And no, I haven't
seen "There Will Be Blood" yet. I get plenty of that
on training rides.
Ben
SLAVE of THE STATE
I have not dug deeply either, since I only care in an energy-geek sort
of way. But I have heard it repeated quite often that the corn
ethanol payoff is about a dead zero. (You put in what you get out. 1-
for-1.) I saw a special this past weekend that sugar cane ethanol
processing is seven times better than corn (7-for-1). If processing
energy was supplied by nukes or wind, then there is a net zero in the
long term. (True even for corn ethanol.)
I don't know how much CO2 a forest absorbs (the rate) compared to a
converted-to-crop field. (On an equal acre basis.)
> If it wasn't for govmint subsidies, Midwestern corn ethanol
> would be undercut by cheaper Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
Midwestern corn ethanol would be nearly non-existent except for
Livedrunk parties and shellac thinning.
> Aside from the questionable environmental issues
> (Brazilian clearcutting), you, Salma Hayek, and I probably all
> agree on the undesirableness of these govmint subsidies.
> (Obama disagrees - I'm shocked, shocked to discover that
> he isn't perfect in all respects!)
That Obama dude is an empty suit.
> > > Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
> > > would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
> > > look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
> > > Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
> > > valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
> > > just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
> > > be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
> > > too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
> > > some people will make bank.
>
> > You're worried Santa Claus's view might be ruined on his once-a-year
> > ANWR flyover? No one is trying to "steal" ANWR because no one really
> > wants it other than oil prospectors. It essentially comes under
> > lockean homesteading.
>
> It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
> National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
> nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors.
>
And so they should not be precluded from working land that no one else
wants.
> With my
> "steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
> lower 48. As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
> landowners and other such people sometimes got
> dispossessed when oil was found.
I'll bet you'd find the biggest and baddest stealing always took place
with the helping hand (and even sanction) of guvmint.
> And no, I haven't
> seen "There Will Be Blood" yet.
I did. The property transfers were legal, that I remember. There is
the question of a promised donation to a church. But that story is not
really about land-stealing and even oil. It is about a strange
individual with arrested general development and yet knows how to do
one thing very well. It was also about other people with problems.
It was depressing really. I did not like it.
Carl Sundquist
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:cdd9c95e-afe3-4a63...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I don't know how much CO2 a forest absorbs (the rate) compared to a
converted-to-crop field. (On an equal acre basis.)
----------------------------
Forests (and crops) being predominately deciduous vegetation, how much CO2
do they actually absorb? Is there a measured difference in CO2 from one
season to the next? I am under the impression that the oceans do a majority
of CO2 absorption, although there are studies claiming that oceans' CO2
uptake has been reduced by reaching saturation points, simultaneously
increasing the water's acidity.
fred....@yahoo.com
> While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> right on the money.
> Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
>
> New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
>
> <more there>
>
> Bill C
A few things that have me perplexed:
1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
warming from the previous century
3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
cool
4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
5) I saw just recently that a scientist from Boulder is being paid to
research the ice-melting patterns in Greenland. Funny thing, the
icecap in Greenland is melting from the bottom, where it is NOT
exposed to higher atmospheric temperatures. Why would ice melt from
the bottom, and not at the surface where exposed to a "hotter
atmosphere"?
6) why won't you folks just admit that while there may be changes in
earth's climate, it is not due to human influences and it is not
directly related to CO2 emissions.
One more thing, recent calculations have shown that if all the tax
increases that the Dali Bama has proposed take effect, the marginal
top tax rate will increase from 39 percent to over 56 percent. Do we
really want the government taking over half of every dollar to spend
on some poorly run, poorly regulated, inefficient program designed to
do nothing but redistribute the wealth of those who can and will work
to those who won't work, for the purpose of buying their votes with
our money???
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On Jun 23, 1:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
> > I haven't looked into it very deeply, but my understanding
> > is that is the problem - the energy costs of growing and
> > processing all that corn are significant and paid in fossil fuel.
> > Biofuel might be a good idea at some point, especially since
> > fossil fuels are a limited resource, but I think its present form
> > has problems.
>
> I have not dug deeply either, since I only care in an energy-geek sort
> of way. But I have heard it repeated quite often that the corn
> ethanol payoff is about a dead zero. (You put in what you get out. 1-
> for-1.) I saw a special this past weekend that sugar cane ethanol
> processing is seven times better than corn (7-for-1). If processing
> energy was supplied by nukes or wind, then there is a net zero in the
> long term. (True even for corn ethanol.)
Wait, there's a better way!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/ehrenreich
"This is the humane alternative to biofuels derived directly
from erstwhile foodstuffs like corn. Biofuels, as you might have
noticed, are exacerbating the global food crisis by turning
edible plants into gasoline. But we could put humans back in
the loop by first turning the corn into Doritos and hence into
liposuctionable body fat. There would be a reason to live again,
even a patriotic rationale for packing on the pounds."
It's RBR Fattie Masters meet Fight Club.
> > It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
> > National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
> > nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors.
>
> And so they should not be precluded from working land that no one else
> wants.
"Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
or don't want it, leaving it valueless. I don't personally
want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
for condos.
> > With my
> > "steal" comment, I was thinking more of land in the
> > lower 48. As far as I know, farmers, Indian tribes, LA
> > landowners and other such people sometimes got
> > dispossessed when oil was found.
>
> I'll bet you'd find the biggest and baddest stealing always took place
> with the helping hand (and even sanction) of guvmint.
Yes, I agree. People paid or persuaded govmint to help
them take land for oil. Before that they did it for water
(Owens Valley, Hetch Hetchy) and before that they did it
for ranches, and before that they did it for gold. It's the
story of the American west - we discovered alchemy,
turning gold into condos.
Ben
Robert Chung
> A few things that have me perplexed:
>
> 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> warming from the previous century
> 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> cool
> 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
the data:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/hadsst2gl.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png
fred....@yahoo.com
Very pretty charts. I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
that it's not surface temps that matter. Oh, wait... you're trotting
out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
data.
Robert Chung
> On Jun 23, 10:01 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 8:24 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > A few things that have me perplexed:
>
> > > 1) the earth stopped its most recent warming cycle in 1998
> > > 2) the earth cooled enough in the last few years to give back all the
> > > warming from the previous century
> > > 3) the oceans stopped heating roughly 7 years ago, and have begun to
> > > cool
> > > 4) the earth's warming cycles correspond almost perfectly with solar
> > > activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior or CO2 emission
> > > levels or CO2 atmospheric levels
>
> > Perhaps the reason you're perplexed is because you haven't looked at
> > the data:
>
>
> Very pretty charts. I suppose you'll have us believe that a 0.4
> degree change in surface temperature is major, when the experts say
> that it's not surface temps that matter. Oh, wait... you're trotting
> out the data that supports your believes, regardless of conflicting
> data.
Hmmm.
You claimed "that the earth cooled enough in the last few years to
give back all the warming from the previous century." The first plot
showed that not to be true. The SST temperature is still almost 1
degree celsius warmer than a century ago.
Second, that's about 0.4 degrees celsius worth of warming in about 25
years -- so yeah, that's pretty major.
Third, you claimed that the Earth "stopped its most recent warming
cycle in 1998." The data show that 1998 was an extreme blip but that
warming has continued since then.
Fourth, you claim that "earth's warming cycles correspond almost
perfectly with solar activity, but not so perfectly w/ human behavior
or CO2 emission levels or CO2 atmospheric levels." The second plot
shows global sea-land temperature, solar activity, and CO2 level. I'd
say global temperature corresponds much more closely to CO2 level than
to solar activity.
No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.
Howard Kveck
Robert Chung <rec...@gmail.com> wrote:
³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be
confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²
Robert Chung
> ³There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but
> we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be
> confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!²
I can press when there needs to be pressed. I can hold hands when
there needs to be hold hands.
Donald Munro
> It's the story of the American west - we discovered alchemy, turning gold
> into condos.
At the moment the converse isn't working.
Bill C
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
> Every month or so, Bill comes across something that validates one of
> Tom's thousands of arguments. Then he gets confused and thinks it
> validates them all. Or something, I don't get it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Fred
I think just happen to think he should get credit for when he is
right, just as he should be challenged when he's wrong. I agree with
your assessment, and it what I've been saying in that there's almost
always a kernel of truth in there underneath.
This is where JT and I were butting heads on Micheal Moore too. Lots
of truth there, lots of distortion. Both should be recognized. Things
are either true(reproducible, verifieable, or open to mathematical
proof), Supposition (varies from major pre-ponderance of the evidence
down to the exceptions that may prove the rule eventually), and proven
false (pretty much same standard as for proven) lots of grey in the
middle, but things need to be recognized for what they are, and dealt
with as such. When there's a question I lean towards "We don't know",
"Not proven", etc...because you can move on from there and are open
minded. Just because we believe something, or say something doesn't
make it so. It makes us idiots, and closed minded bigots frequently.
What is, is.
Bill C
Michael Press
<eb2021e4-a296-4911...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
> there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> or don't want it, leaving it valueless. I don't personally
> want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> for condos.
I promise that they will not bulldoze the saguaro.
They will sell them for a pretty penny,
_then_ they will bulldoze the habitat.
Hope this clears things up for you.
--
Michael Press
r15...@aol.com
> There are certainly a number of liberals/progressives calling for greater use of
> biofuel but the driving force is companies like ADM. They get huge subsidies for
> growing corn for biofuel. The subsidies they got for simply growing corn is one
> reason why corn producers in Africa are out of business: food aid does not show up as
> dollars, to be spent were the receiving country chooses (like buying from local
> sources). It invariably is set up to show up as a comodity, sourced from here. And
> that means subsidised ADM corn.
Subsidies hell. Mandates. We have ethanol mandates in addition to
subsidies. Why do they need subsidies if they have mandates?
Donald Munro
> Subsidies hell. Mandates. We have ethanol mandates in addition to
> subsidies. Why do they need subsidies if they have mandates?
Perhaps they should get womandates instead.
Bill C
wrote:
>
> "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
> there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> or don't want it, leaving it valueless. I don't personally
> want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> for condos.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Ben
The point here is that the undeveloped land in the reserves and parks
is collectively owned by the people, paid for by our tax dollars. I
don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me. I'm a big
proponent of folks selling the development rights to land trusts too.
Cuts the money going to the government, and preserves the land. Works
for me!
Bill C
Sounds like you see it the same way.
Paul G.
Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
-Paul
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:59 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
> > > It is an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not an Arctic
> > > National People Refuge. The whole point of it is that
> > > nobody wants it. Other than oil prospectors.
>
> > And so they should not be precluded from working land that no one else
> > wants.
>
> "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
> there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> or don't want it, leaving it valueless.
The way you use it is the way a child demanding a chocolate bar uses
it. I mean it to the point one is willing to act on the wants through
their own efforts -- to put visible self-created investment into
acheiving the want. Saying "I want to retire a multi-millionaire at
age 50" means nothing unless one is willing to do something about it.
To have some idea about the values people hold, we can only look at
their actions and attempt to make reasonable judgments about what the
values behind those actions mean. IOW, talk is cheap. Assuming that a
reasonable judgment could be made, there is next the cost of viewing
and assessing the information. That study itself could have a high
transaction cost -- perhaps unfundable. A low cost way of teasing out
a hint of values is to look at what people are willing to pay (in
money/time/resource) for X, as it is a form of action/transaction. It
is very imperfect, as price is not value, but the sad reality is that
any other method of assessing value faces even graver difficulty in
the ironic attempt to drive the subjectivity out of a subjective
matter. I mean that despite all its problems as a "value viewer," the
price system is the best thing available. I think polling -- asking
people what they value -- has worse problems, although I do not claim
that it can never give a decent answer. IOW, talk is cheap. (That
politicians specialize in talk should give that one away.)
So if you want to have some hint of how valued something is -- that
landscape from valued to valueless -- look at what the going price
across markets are in money/time/resource/blood. And make sure that
the entity doing the spending is spending _their own_ money/time/
resource/blood. And note that is never the function of The State, who
never spends its own money/time/resource/blood, since it can only
seize those from the population under its regime. Yes, The State
always destroys the price system wherever it decides to "supply a
good." If you want to have an affordable hint about values, the worst
possible thing you could do is destroy the price system. Sad but
true. Don't be a commie unless your basic goal is to obscure human
values and insert your own in place. I mean, if you value tyrrany...
You want X, you value X? What are you going to _do_ for it?
> I don't personally
> want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> for condos.A
Yeah, the guvmint stole the land fair and square, so "they" should
decide how it is used. You want to possess a view of the mountains
or something else about the mountains, but you can't really describe
how you gained title to the mountains or how you paid for them. So
you use the hammer of the state to seize the land for your purposes,
denying others of more direct and obvious use. When you say "the
state," you really mean yourself owning that land. You want to take
control of that resource by fiat, since "owning property" is
essentially a matter of answering the "who controls the physical
thing" question.
Your way of looking at it has to do with the way you were trained to
think about it. The language is your (as with anyone) tool of
abstraction -- your way of framing the world. Your frames control the
boundaries of your conceptions and perceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_framing
I'm not going to give you any hints. You might become dangerous.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Jun 23, 11:30 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Want" is a funny word, isn't it? The way you use it
> > there is an excluded middle - you either want something,
> > or don't want it, leaving it valueless. I don't personally
> > want or wish to possess the mountains a few miles from
> > my house, but that doesn't mean I think the state should
> > sell off the park to people who will bulldoze the saguaro
> > for condos.
>
> is collectively owned by the people, paid for by our tax dollars.
Bullshit. That is the crap they sold you for your puny vote and
confidence.
> I
> don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
> something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
> it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
> condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
> off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
> nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
> FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me.
So first you talk about the guvmint essentially siezing the land, and
next you talk about selling on a "pure free market basis."
Interesting.
Donald Munro
He's still got millions of 3rd world residents to work on, he won't
get around to you for a while yet.
SLAVE of THE STATE
Those 3rd world residents were on his land before he got there. They
gotta go.
Donald Munro
> Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.
Karp season starts next month.
Bill C
>
> > I
> > don't want my government selling off the rights for a buck an acre, or
> > something close. As an owner, like you, it's worth much more to me as
> > it is right now. Just the pleasure of knowing it is there, in that
> > condition, is worth more to me than what I would get out of selling
> > off the rights to develop it. On a purely free market basis, if
> > nothing else, I'm not selling it because all of the offers have been
> > FAR below what I consider the actual value to be to me.
>
> So first you talk about the guvmint essentially siezing the land, and
> next you talk about selling on a "pure free market basis."
> Interesting.
That was mine not, Ben's.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
> That was mine not, Ben's.
While I've slipped in comments to older posts/attrib's before, I
almost always leave the attrib markers in place. This time I did not
slip in a comment to an older Ben posting, nor did I misplace my
comment according to the attrib markers.
Back to the point: It is a confidence game.
Paul G.
Prof Larry S. Karp? Weren't you banging his daughter, and doesn't
that make you a Karpette Bagger?
-Paul
Donald Munro
> Prof Larry S. Karp? Weren't you banging his daughter, and doesn't that
> make you a Karpette Bagger?
On rbr we refer to it as tapping unless it involves a female climate
scientist in which case it is referred to as nailing.
Bill C
Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
They took our money, they bought it, we own it.
Bill C
William Asher
Once you've nailed a chick who understands baroclinic torque and her own
Coriolis forcing, you'll never go back. Or so I'm told.
--
Bill Asher
Robert Chung
> Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
Your fringe at work:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/parhat-combatant-solitary/
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/oig-opr-investigation-hire-slip.pdf
Robert Chung
> http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/oig-opr-investigation-hire-slip.pdf
BTW, the latter link has the worst charts ever.
Robert Chung
> http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/parhat-combatant-solitary/
OTOH, they do that to themselves, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html
Robert Chung
> Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
> through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
> system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
> wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
> Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
> They took our money, they bought it, we own it.
Cool, I own ANWR. Drill it.
Cool, I own saguaro cactus. Doze it.
Paul G.
You'd think a slave would have a more liberal view of "property
rights". I think the Bible says it best:
"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under
his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue
a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."
May ye reap what ye sow..
-Paul
Michael Press
<32114099-7edf-4404...@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <car...@egine.com> wrote:
There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
--
Michael Press
Robert Chung
> There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?
Refusing to open your e-mail because you know it contains something
unpleasant might be called denial:
Bill C
> On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
The lunatics are running the asylum. In the DOD in particular we are
seeing the results of two decades of promotion via politics,
bootlicking, pencil whipping, and burying anything negative. Lots and
lots of folks are cheering the start at cleaning out the top of the
AF. We all got to watch lots of really good, capable folks leave the
military, including some Academy grads because they couldn't deal with
the BS going on. The mission and the people have been so far down the
ladder it's incredible, and now it's really showing in the contracting
failures, the total collapse of the systems around the nuclear
weapons, the huge increase, as a percentage, in PTSD, etc...Anyone who
dared bring up the problems, and concerns over the last couple of
decades in particular was killing their careers.
Before Bush it was just making things look good to get ahead, now
it's that combined with blind support for what Bush wants, no matter
the cost and destruction it is wreaking on our own people.
Wes Clarke was the most political General in history. His career was
made by playing with politicians and getting them to exert pressure
for him. From what I'm seeing now, and I don't have first hand
knowledge of these folks, they are far worse in that regard than he
was. The only thing that seems to matter now to keeping your job/
getting promoted is to not only go with the totally fucked up flow,
but work your ass off to promote it.
Seems to be the case across the government with the Bush clowns too.
It'ds gonna take decades, or more, of dedicated hard work, and massive
resources to fix the disaster these fuckheads have caused.
Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
it.
Bill C
Bill C
That's the thing about democracy, the mob gets to rule, and in this
case I hope we outvote/outpressure you and the exploit it folks. It's
pretty simple, If we leave it alone now we always have that option in
the future. Once they get their hands on it, it's fucked over for good
and can't be put back, and they sure as hell aren't going to pay to
fix it. On top of that SCOTUS just said they get a free pass pretty
much with Exxon Valdez.
http://www.trcp.org/pr_061808.aspx
TRCP Sues Interior Department over Mismanaged Wyoming Energy Project
Multiple violations of federal law drive sportsmen's group to action
on Pinedale Anticline, currently targeted for greatly expanded
drilling and development
WASHINGTON — The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today
filed suit in U.S. District Court against the Department of the
Interior over its mishandling of energy development on the Pinedale
Anticline natural gas development project in southwestern Wyoming.
The TRCP suit contends that the Bureau of Land Management failed to
implement "adaptive environmental management" and mitigation
requirements as committed to in the decision documents for the project
area, which encompasses approximately 200,000 acres of the Green River
Basin in Sublette County, Wyo. The sportsmen's group does not want to
halt development in the Pinedale Anticline. The TRCP supports
responsible energy development coupled with determined efforts to
sustain fish and wildlife resources throughout the course of
development activities.
In formulating the plan for development of the Pinedale project eight
years ago, the BLM committed itself and industry to processes that the
agency concluded were essential to develop the region in an
environmentally sensitive manner that complied with BLM obligations
under federal law. The TRCP contends that these adaptive environmental
management procedures, which attempted to address concerns regarding
wildlife, air quality and water quality as they arose, have failed.
The BLM violations have resulted in serious damage to wildlife
populations in and around the Pinedale Anticline.
"The government points to the Pinedale Anticline project as a model of
responsible development," said TRCP President and CEO George Cooper.
"But when we actually look at this fractured landscape and the
shrinking wildlife populations, we see the effects of a model that is
seriously flawed."
<<lots more there>>
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/25/news/companies/SCOTUS_exxon/index.htm?cnn=yes
Hoorah for big government. We need more of it. That's the solution.
Bill C
Michael Press
<31ab76d3-c31a-4123...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rec...@gmail.com> wrote:
I know you know exactly what I was saying.
Suppose you take into account the statement to which I replied.
--
Michael Press
Robert Chung
> > > Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > More fringe:
> > http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6...
[snip]
> Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
> of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
> of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
> it.
Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?
Robert Chung
> I know you know exactly what I was saying.
Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
"... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
easily have been speaking about you.
Bill C
What is there to say that an administration in power hasn't joined the
fringe? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. FDR, LBJ, Bush...The scary
part of this is the poll numbers of Republicans who still blindly
support Bush. If your argument is that, that moves them all to the
extremist fringe that's a tough one to argue against too.
Are the people who support, enable, and advocate for the folks doing
extremist/fringe crap guilty of it too. IMO yes. When it stops being
the fringe is open to debate.
The good thing is that it looks like the pendulum is coming back the
other way again.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Jun 25, 4:04 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 12:38 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
>
> > > > More fringe:
> > > >http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6...
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Am I supposed to argue that the extremist fringe hasn't got control
> > > of the executive branch and all that goes with it? I'd need a shitload
> > > of skunky beer, and a loaded crack pipe to even begin to think about
> > > it.
>
> > Not necessarily. But at what point does something stop being "fringe"
> > and start being the daily operations of the administration in power?
>
> What is there to say that an administration in power hasn't joined the
Whoa dog! Killing piggies and destroying crops is normal and
constitutional, of course. Siezing gold is a great thing! Only
whackos that don't completely agree on these creative ways to grow the
middle class are fringe elements of populations/societies. Why do you
hate FDR?
And the US was such a great place to stay in, Lincoln had to wage a
bloody destructive war to keep states in. Sorta like the Soviets not
allowing people to leave. Habeaus Corpus? Suspended. Free speech?
Violated. Riots against the draft (involuntary servitude)? Well
yeah. Weird that most (all?) the other western nations managed to
emancipate peacefully.
Why can't you hate only George Bush? George Bush does see far past
the constitution, as he stands on the shoulders of the giants before
him.
Of course, some people don't really care about that, because they are
drenched in positivism. They behave as if todays' power problem is
characteristically new, and "we" need to simply solve symptoms of
todays' problem, rather than any structural problems of power. Is the
Bush Administration an abject disgrace? Sure. It isn't the first,
and won't be the last. You can bet on that.
Michael Press
<39c95f7f-5f2a-403b...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rec...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are getting further and further from what I said,
and what I replied to, and the meaning.
--
Michael Press
Paul G.
> <32114099-7edf-4404-8888-5a04e90bd...@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Some people claim we never actually landed on the moon. Bush, the
worst president in history has a 28% approval rating, which I guess
means 28% of people polled will approve of damn near anything. So you
can find nut cases to doubt anything and everything. Your comment is
meaningless.
Oh yeah, and the "psycho" thing? You were played... like a
violin. ;-)
-Paul
Paul G.
I'll have to try that with those fat "estimated quarterly taxes"
envelopes the IRS sends me every year...
-Paul
Paul G.
> In article
> <39c95f7f-5f2a-403b-83a0-e95436bc3...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 12:56 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > I know you know exactly what I was saying.
>
> > Fred Mosteller used to say about physicians, "they know so much ..."
> > Then he'd pause, shake his head in wonderment and awe and continue,
> > "... they know so *very* much that just isn't true." He could as
> > easily have been speaking about you.
>
> You are getting further and further from what I said,
> and what I replied to, and the meaning.
>
> --
> Michael Press
You mean "the meaninglessness", right?
-Paul
Howard Kveck
"Paul G." <car...@egine.com> wrote:
I think you'll find that the government does not work on a "if it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for you" basis.
--
tanx,
Howard
The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?