What - Intelligent Thought?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 12 Feb 2007 04:41:44
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: What - Intelligent Thought?

At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm

"The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."

""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
emissions and impacts."

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in Redwoods
would remain unchanged.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 01:18:04
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 4:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

>
> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> postings appear in the same vein.

A person who makes a true threat (as distinguished from
joking or hyperbole in the course of political argument)
against the President of the U.S. may be prosecuted for
a Federal crime, 18 USC 871, and if convicted may be
penalized with a fine or imprisonment of not more than
five years,
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/
usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html >

If you have credible evidence that a Federal crime has
been committed in rbr, the responsible thing to do is
to inform your local FBI field office. If you aren't
willing to do that, you could stop talking out of your
ass-hat. Claiming someone has committed a Federal crime
is a serious accusation. Fortunately, in your case, I
don't think it could be construed as defamation since,
in technical legal language, nobody takes you seriously.

In the meantime, Bill and I will be forming the first
Gitmo Cycling Club.

Ben
RBR Thoughtcrime Squad

Date: 18 Feb 2007 07:14:41
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 18 Feb 2007 01:18:04 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>On Feb 17, 4:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>Fortunately, in your case, I don't think it
> could be construed as defamation since,
> in technical legal language, nobody
> takes you seriously.

POTM
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 Feb 2007 17:02:49
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> postings appear in the same vein.

No way. Shows your mindset, though. Of course, you couldn't even get
away with slapping your girlfriend. Some assassin *you'd* make.

No TK, speaking for myself, actually, I want a trial.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

Whaddya think? Seems a lot more solid than "lying" or "cherry picking
intelligence" so as to have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Thank you. --D-y

Date: 17 Feb 2007 21:21:40
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it.

Not it that means Cheney would be president.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 Feb 2007 23:35:52
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
>>second if they thought that they could get away with it.
>
>
> Not it that means Cheney would be president.
>

This reminds me of when ray-gun was shot - the lame-ass Sect of Def Haig
was standing in front of the press and exclaiming 'I am in charge
here!'. Poor bastard had no frickin clue about the line of succession:
It would have been GW I follwed by Jim Wright (IIRC).

And no, tommy... we are not wanting to see bushie assasinated. You have
some nerve... Now, to have the man brought up on charges for attacking a
sovereign nation, cooking intelligence, illegal wire-taps, willfully
ignoring the 1st, 4th and possible the 6th Amendments to the
Constitution, then hell yeah!

Date: 18 Feb 2007 15:31:57
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:er8vrn02prn@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> This reminds me of when ray-gun was shot - the lame-ass Sect of Def Haig
> was standing in front of the press and exclaiming 'I am in charge here!'.
> Poor bastard had no frickin clue about the line of succession:

And apparently you never actually knew what happened and what he said. But
then short fat runts of the litter seldom do.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 21:06:47
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <n0eft2ptaujrddlrd2bh04j56afo4chemk@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> > second if they thought that they could get away with it.
>
> Not (if) it that means Cheney would be president.

Isn't he already?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012263.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Feb 2007 15:27:06
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>
> > Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
> > too. That's real news.
>
> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
> hope to balance the comments here.
>
> > I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
> > that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>
> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
> that they were only letting her know the rules?
>
> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> postings appear in the same vein.

Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
call for help. I specialize in hyperbole and challenges to provoke
discussion, but you are WAY over the edge, and while I freely admit I
do it on purpose I think you, literally, believe what you say.
That's scary.
No hyperbole here, I'll kiss your ass next to the podium at Cross
Nat's right after the Pro ceremony in a few years if any regular here
assasinates Bush while he's President.
I have NO plans to go to KC.
Bush and Co. are criminals, and have done more damage to the
Republican Party than anybody since Hoover.
You just can't seem to admit that ANY Republican could possibly have
done anything wrong, unless it was Specter who is the Republican
versions of Lieberman.
I like Lieberman a whole lot better than Specter for what it's worth.
Bill C

Date: 20 Feb 2007 09:45:26
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 20, 11:49 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org >
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:56:08 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> >But acres and acres of NSA computers can't understand perfectly
> >understandable language. Got you.
>
> They aren't trying to understand the speech - they are sampling for
> intercept tags to decide what to request follow ups on. They don't try
> to translate - they only need to identify something on the list, such
> as "kill" and "Bush" within 3 seconds in the scan. Then it gets turned
> over to a human transcriber, based on the found tags. He or she puts
> on the phones, racks up the tape, and does the rest.
>
> And, yeah, the NSA computers can do this, in concert with wideband
> tape scanning devices. This isn't news. The issue is how well and in
> what volume, and with what safeguards that there isn't a list of
> people being assembled based on the tags and not actual vouched
> intercept.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

As always, Tom has been instrumental in yet another area of expertise.
What would you know about NSA, you just worked for them.
Bill C

Date: 20 Feb 2007 13:31:04
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 20 Feb 2007 09:45:26 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>As always, Tom has been instrumental in yet another area of expertise.
>What would you know about NSA, you just worked for them.
> Bill C

Well, this stuff is far removed from what I did. OTOH, I do know
several people that work in this area at NSA and this is their
unclassified take.

I would like to know how NSA could listen in to ALL communications.
Now maybe when we have intercept satellites that can look down at all
radio sources, all the time, hooked to a wide band collection device,
we can do that, although it sures seems to be a waste of resources.
And then there are all those closed system communication systems - the
ones that don't go public at any point and are don't have external
signal emanations. They are a bear to intercept.

You don't have to live next to Ft. Meade and know the neighbors. Some
of the FUD doesn't hold water past the first glance. Like DIRNSA Inman
claiming to read all the intercept, when the stuff in my office alone
stacked five feet daily (and was hugely ignored by even my office).

Now even more off-topic. When I came back from overseas and before
they constructed our new office area, they had me 'analyze' traffic
volume from an unfriendly. After spending about half a day actually
counting lines, I got tired of the useless process and counted lines
on about 50 random pages, pressed down a stack of traffic against a
ruler and then counted the pages in six inches. I then measured
everything with the same wood-with-a-metal-edge ruler most of us used
in school and came up with feet, multiplied it etc. etc. and gave the
number to some civilian.

Nearly a year later, I was sitting in a honest to god CIA area
briefing and they gave out a number that sounded real familiar. Woke
up and paid attention long enough to find out they were still using my
number. My incredibly useless, bogus number. Always hoped it made it
into a CIA green book.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 20 Feb 2007 19:22:42
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

<snip >
> Nearly a year later, I was sitting in a honest to god CIA area
> briefing and they gave out a number that sounded real familiar. Woke
> up and paid attention long enough to find out they were still using my
> number. My incredibly useless, bogus number. Always hoped it made it
> into a CIA green book.

Why do you hate America?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 20 Feb 2007 14:39:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 20 Feb 2007 19:22:42 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Nearly a year later, I was sitting in a honest to god CIA area
>> briefing and they gave out a number that sounded real familiar. Woke
>> up and paid attention long enough to find out they were still using my
>> number. My incredibly useless, bogus number. Always hoped it made it
>> into a CIA green book.
>
>Why do you hate America?

Its more a 'face on the cover of the Rolling Stone' thing.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 20 Feb 2007 20:13:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>
> Its more a 'face on the cover of the Rolling Stone' thing.
>

Why do you hate the Rolling Stone?

And haven't we all suffered enough after Rik Ocasek.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:28:06
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 20 Feb 2007 20:13:29 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>>
>> Its more a 'face on the cover of the Rolling Stone' thing.
>>
>
>Why do you hate the Rolling Stone?
>
>And haven't we all suffered enough after Rik Ocasek.

You are taking this all too literally. The Literalists have always
been behind Our Nation's problems.

There is hope. I too was a Literal, until Howard Cosell pretty much
crushed my spirits. Now I'm into Ellipsism...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA
Still hanging around DC street corners hoping to be 'literally blown
off my feet".

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:09:53
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Now I'm into Ellipsism...

Must be a fatty master disease.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 07:29:09
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in news:45dbf2f4$0$6931
$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:

> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> Now I'm into Ellipsism...
>
> Must be a fatty master disease.

It's a trackie thing. It doesn't have to make sense.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 18 Feb 2007 02:30:53
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171754826.463984.324910@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >>http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>>
>> > Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
>> > too. That's real news.
>>
>> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on
>> these
>> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
>> hope to balance the comments here.
>>
>> > I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
>> > that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>>
>> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that
>> rules
>> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
>> that they were only letting her know the rules?
>>
>> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in
>> one
>> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
>> postings appear in the same vein.
>
> Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
> call for help.

I might remind you that I'm not the one posting on a bicycle group that
can't ride a bicycle.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 23:58:39
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/17/07 3:27 PM, in article
1171754826.463984.324910@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>>
>>> Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
>>> too. That's real news.
>>
>> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
>> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
>> hope to balance the comments here.
>>
>>> I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
>>> that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>>
>> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
>> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
>> that they were only letting her know the rules?
>>
>> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
>> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
>> postings appear in the same vein.
>
> Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
> call for help. I specialize in hyperbole and challenges to provoke
> discussion, but you are WAY over the edge, and while I freely admit I
> do it on purpose I think you, literally, believe what you say.
> That's scary.
> No hyperbole here, I'll kiss your ass next to the podium at Cross
> Nat's right after the Pro ceremony in a few years if any regular here
> assasinates Bush while he's President.
> I have NO plans to go to KC.
> Bush and Co. are criminals, and have done more damage to the
> Republican Party than anybody since Hoover.
> You just can't seem to admit that ANY Republican could possibly have
> done anything wrong, unless it was Specter who is the Republican
> versions of Lieberman.
> I like Lieberman a whole lot better than Specter for what it's worth.
> Bill C
>

Bill!!

I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.

The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......

Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
(intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
succeed.

It is the same as some of you say regarding other cyclists.......
Some guys who are perpetual Cat 4s are lambasted for not moving ahead. MAYBE
they do not WANT TO or DO NOT have the discipline to do what it takes to
move ahead..

I will never be more than a Cat 3 because I am NOT willing to do what it
takes to move up. I am not willing to sacrifice other areas of my life to do
it. If someone made a conscious decision they are not willing to do the work
it takes to get a degree to move up their standard of living that is a
personal decision..

Date: 25 Feb 2007 11:51:12
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 24, 3:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Cipale.bot wrote in message
>
> news:eroupk02uss@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> > numbnutz... she is ster than you will ever be...

Her sort of "intelligence" is nothing I would ever hope to achieve.
What did she or you do other than state the patently obvious? But to
be fair, I would give her the benefit of the doubt when speaking for
herself -- after all, it is *you* that has represented her here.

> Being ried to you disproves that theory right off the bat.

{Laughs}

The wind-up for me was russell.bot writing:

"Of course, the fact is most people in the U.S. also support our form
"of quasi-socialism."

I've heard the same sort of comment many times before by a "certain
variety" of statists, and thus it is a more or less valid stereotype.
One would think that if "most people" were for it, then participation
would hardly need to be compulsory. But "they" insist that it must be
compulsory, and elect "representatives" to force participation under
threat of violence.

Which means, of course, that "they" are simply dishonest: socialists
are liars and worse yet, thieves. It can't be a simple problem of
ignorance. Okay,... I suppose naked stupidity could be an
explanation. It is a plausible explanation for chipale.bot, if not
for others.

Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:04:21
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 24, 3:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>Cipale.bot wrote in message
>>
>>news:eroupk02uss@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>>numbnutz... she is ster than you will ever be...
>
>
> Her sort of "intelligence" is nothing I would ever hope to achieve.
> What did she or you do other than state the patently obvious? But to
> be fair, I would give her the benefit of the doubt when speaking for
> herself -- after all, it is *you* that has represented her here.
>
>
>>Being ried to you disproves that theory right off the bat.
>
>
> {Laughs}
>
>
> The wind-up for me was russell.bot writing:
>
> "Of course, the fact is most people in the U.S. also support our form
> "of quasi-socialism."
>
> I've heard the same sort of comment many times before by a "certain
> variety" of statists, and thus it is a more or less valid stereotype.
> One would think that if "most people" were for it, then participation
> would hardly need to be compulsory. But "they" insist that it must be
> compulsory, and elect "representatives" to force participation under
> threat of violence.
>
> Which means, of course, that "they" are simply dishonest: socialists
> are liars and worse yet, thieves. It can't be a simple problem of
> ignorance. Okay,... I suppose naked stupidity could be an
> explanation. It is a plausible explanation for chipale.bot, if not
> for others.
>

Whatever.. good night child.

Date: 23 Feb 2007 17:58:30
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 22, 3:23 pm, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com > wrote:

> I made that comment to my wife (an RN) that it is funny as hell that
> people in this country:
> 1 - Accuse you of being a Communist if you support something like
> National Health Care (Get it RIGHT, morons! It is Socilaism!)

Ah, well now you're splitting hairs.

> 2 - This country (i.e. the Govt) has been practicing various forms of
> Socialism for YEARS! Socail Security, Medicare/Medicaid, UNEMPLOYMENT
> INSURANCE!

You have ried a brilliant lady. Did she figure it all out herself,
or did she have help?

> My wife just shakes her head at them and laughs.

She's probably laughing at you.

Date: 24 Feb 2007 00:55:43
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 22, 3:23 pm, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I made that comment to my wife (an RN) that it is funny as hell that
>>people in this country:
>>1 - Accuse you of being a Communist if you support something like
>>National Health Care (Get it RIGHT, morons! It is Socilaism!)
>
>
> Ah, well now you're splitting hairs.
>
>
>>2 - This country (i.e. the Govt) has been practicing various forms of
>>Socialism for YEARS! Socail Security, Medicare/Medicaid, UNEMPLOYMENT
>>INSURANCE!
>
>
> You have ried a brilliant lady. Did she figure it all out herself,
> or did she have help?
>
>
>>My wife just shakes her head at them and laughs.
>
>
> She's probably laughing at you.
>
>
numbnutz... she is ster than you will ever be...

Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:18:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:eroupk02uss@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> numbnutz... she is ster than you will ever be...

Being ried to you disproves that theory right off the bat.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 21:03:40
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <C1FCD6C3.206391%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
> MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
> government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
> having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.
>
> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......

Then why are you so rabidly in favor of an administration that has ignored the
Constitution and rule of law so frequently? FISA courts for warrants to spy on US
citizens? Bah! Habeus corpus? Nah, that's old school. Geneva COnvention rules?
International treaties? Eh, we don't feel like it...

The reason you have no objections to those things is simple. You like to think of
youself as a brave, tough guy, willing to do whatever it takes. But really you
accept that stuff because you're afraid. When 9-11 happened, you wet yourself. "Oh
no, the nasty brown people are out to get us!" Essentially it gets down to you
wanting to feel safe hiding in Mommy's skirt, Mommy in the form of big tough Gearge
W. Bush.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Feb 2007 15:29:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-FA7F1E.21034017022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> Then why are you so rabidly in favor of an administration that has
> ignored the
> Constitution and rule of law so frequently? FISA courts for warrants to
> spy on US
> citizens? Bah! Habeus corpus? Nah, that's old school. Geneva COnvention
> rules?
> International treaties? Eh, we don't feel like it...

Duh, you mean like Clinton going to war against Serbia without permission of
the Congress? How about Clinton financing the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip ?

Oh, wait, you were up in arms when Waco occurred - oh, no, that's right, you
thought that those bastards got what they deserved for being religious.

If there's one thing that is pretty funny on this group it's the tin plated
phoneys like you.

Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:32:17
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 20, 1:31 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2007 09:45:26 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >As always, Tom has been instrumental in yet another area of expertise.
> >What would you know about NSA, you just worked for them.
> > Bill C
>
> Well, this stuff is far removed from what I did. OTOH, I do know
> several people that work in this area at NSA and this is their
> unclassified take.
>
> I would like to know how NSA could listen in to ALL communications.
> Now maybe when we have intercept satellites that can look down at all
> radio sources, all the time, hooked to a wide band collection device,
> we can do that, although it sures seems to be a waste of resources.
> And then there are all those closed system communication systems - the
> ones that don't go public at any point and are don't have external
> signal emanations. They are a bear to intercept.
>
> You don't have to live next to Ft. Meade and know the neighbors. Some
> of the FUD doesn't hold water past the first glance. Like DIRNSA Inman
> claiming to read all the intercept, when the stuff in my office alone
> stacked five feet daily (and was hugely ignored by even my office).

LOL we may have sent you some from Augsburg. Everything is hush hush
right? One Christmas Eve a Soviet Squadron was flying Barcap along the
Czech border, and all of a sudden the flight leader switches to
english and Says "Merry Christmas Field Station Augsburg." Neddless to
say noone answered but lots of laughs.

>
> Now even more off-topic. When I came back from overseas and before
> they constructed our new office area, they had me 'analyze' traffic
> volume from an unfriendly. After spending about half a day actually
> counting lines, I got tired of the useless process and counted lines
> on about 50 random pages, pressed down a stack of traffic against a
> ruler and then counted the pages in six inches. I then measured
> everything with the same wood-with-a-metal-edge ruler most of us used
> in school and came up with feet, multiplied it etc. etc. and gave the
> number to some civilian.
>
> Nearly a year later, I was sitting in a honest to god CIA area
> briefing and they gave out a number that sounded real familiar. Woke
> up and paid attention long enough to find out they were still using my
> number. My incredibly useless, bogus number. Always hoped it made it
> into a CIA green book.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

That's good stuff. Learned never to bet on US sporting events with
the guys at the Field Station either. Seems they just happened to have
a guy or two who"overheard" live broadcasts pretty regularly.
Bill C

Date: 20 Feb 2007 14:44:41
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 20 Feb 2007 11:32:17 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

> That's good stuff. Learned never to bet on US sporting events with
>the guys at the Field Station either. Seems they just happened to have
>a guy or two who"overheard" live broadcasts pretty regularly.

Our bay could pick up the first skip of Armed Forces Radio and the
regulars heard the second (something about the antenna we had
available). We had a guy in our bay who ran a complex bookie operation
(for us, anyway) that couldn't resist taking money on the Ohio
State/Michigan State game a year that MSU was horrible and OSU was #1
or close and MSU won. When the losers found out, he wasn't available
for duty for about a week. Had trouble smoking his cigar, IIRC.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 18 Feb 2007 21:26:45
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <Ch_Bh.3535$tD2.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-FA7F1E.21034017022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > Then why are you so rabidly in favor of an administration that has
> > ignored the Constitution and rule of law so frequently? FISA courts for warrants
> > to spy on US citizens? Bah! Habeus corpus? Nah, that's old school. Geneva
> > Convention rules? International treaties? Eh, we don't feel like it...
>
> Duh, you mean like Clinton going to war against Serbia without permission of
> the Congress?

Are you trying to say that I supported that, Tom? I know that you have a lot of
people to hate and it must get hard to keep them straight so maybe you ought to do a
quick Google of the group to see if your assertion is based on fact.

> How about Clinton financing the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip ?

Sorry, I don't think that quite rises to the level of Bush having the NSA spying
on US citizens, in defiance of FISA rules.

> Oh, wait, you were up in arms when Waco occurred - oh, no, that's right, you
> thought that those bastards got what they deserved for being religious.

Huh, you think the problem with what happened at Waco was due to them just being
"religious?" Well, piles of arms and explosives is a religion with you...

> If there's one thing that is pretty funny on this group it's the tin plated
> phoneys like you.

Coming from the king of hypocrits in here that one really bothers me.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Feb 2007 14:25:30
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 23, 3:32 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2:43 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > You'd think that Tom would know what a "DittyBop" was, right?
> > > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just as general info, "Ditty Bop" is the nickname for a " Morse
> > intercept", "Morse code intercept", technician, specialist, etc... the
> > terminology varies, but the handle is at least as old as the Korean
> > war and I see the army still has an MOS for it:http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arwarrant/bl352h.htm
>
> http://www.thedittybops.com/
>
> Warning, actual bike content:http://www.thedittybopsbiketour.blogspot.com/

Those are some serious "Ditty Bop Babes".
The fact that I gave NO clue what it was, and them were the reasons I
was hoping Tom couldn't Google up an answer.
May not be proof positive that his "expertise" in intelligence is
"overstated".
But he does say YOU have to be watched. I'd rather watch the babes,
no offense.
Bill C

Date: 23 Feb 2007 00:32:42
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 22, 2:43 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

> > You'd think that Tom would know what a "DittyBop" was, right?
> > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just as general info, "Ditty Bop" is the nickname for a " Morse
> intercept", "Morse code intercept", technician, specialist, etc... the
> terminology varies, but the handle is at least as old as the Korean
> war and I see the army still has an MOS for it:http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arwarrant/bl352h.htm
>

http://www.thedittybops.com/

Warning, actual bike content:
http://www.thedittybopsbiketour.blogspot.com/

Date: 22 Feb 2007 13:43:12
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 9:41 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:05 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in the
> > >world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
> > >that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
>
> > Bullshit, Mr. Bull. I can point out where I worked at NSA. The
> > unclassified part of my orders says that I worked as a Chinese radio
> > intercept at the 7th R.R.F.S. in Ramasun, Thailand. It really
> > happened. No make believe - why would I, nothing special about it.
> > Went there a Spec 5, left a SSG with a couple of ordinary ribbons.
>
> > I live about ten miles from NSA now and have several neighbors and
> > friends that work at NSA. I know the group that my source works now.
> > This isn't even particularly interesting stuff to them (again, this is
> > not classified stuff and not hard to find referenced in tech
> > magazines). And, for the record, it isn't some vast program from their
> > point of view. It is something that can be done, but mostly if they
> > are following up on an event with a known connection. I got the
> > impression that they wouldn't expect to ever bother to use it. Just a
> > tool available.
>
> > Gives a name of the company, the name of the project, the name of a
> > supervisor that you worked for. Tell me when and why in your miserable
> > opinion nothing has changed since you made your, well, lets call it
> > 'contribution'. Until then, I will consider you nothing but Mr. Bull.
>
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...
>
> Why didn't I have any problem knowing exactly what you were talking
> about. That, using those terms, was exactly the shop talk from our
> analysts and intercept folks.
> As you pointed out a lot of this is out there in unclassified sources
> and on the net too. What isn't is the day to day conversation, shop
> terms, nicknames for shit, etc...
> You'd think that Tom would know what a "DittyBop" was, right?
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just as general info, "Ditty Bop" is the nickname for a " Morse
intercept", "Morse code intercept", technician, specialist, etc... the
terminology varies, but the handle is at least as old as the Korean
war and I see the army still has an MOS for it:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arwarrant/bl352h.htm

Army Warrant Officer Jobs

MOS 352H - Morse Intercept Technician

Duties: Manages the personnel and technical assets of INSCOM intercept/
EW activities. Coordinates, plans, and supervises personnel engaged in
intercept activity. Knows analytical techniques and has training and
experience in COMINT and EW. Conducts training of and employment of
Morse intercept equipment and personnel. Establishes work schedules
and evaluates training and performance of personnel. Conducts a
continual training program to ensure Morse personnel are adept at
their MOS. Advises the commander and staff officers on employment and
deployment of Morse intercept operations. Conducts studies, analysis,
and evaluation of collection evaluation statistics and is prepared to
present results to commander. Must know antenna theory and wave
propagation.

The enlisted is MOS 352Q
That gets confusing especially when you've got several different
branches and countries' folks together at the same place.
"Ditty Bop" is universal.
Bill C

Date: 21 Feb 2007 06:41:19
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 9:05 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> >Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in the
> >world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
> >that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Bullshit, Mr. Bull. I can point out where I worked at NSA. The
> unclassified part of my orders says that I worked as a Chinese radio
> intercept at the 7th R.R.F.S. in Ramasun, Thailand. It really
> happened. No make believe - why would I, nothing special about it.
> Went there a Spec 5, left a SSG with a couple of ordinary ribbons.
>
> I live about ten miles from NSA now and have several neighbors and
> friends that work at NSA. I know the group that my source works now.
> This isn't even particularly interesting stuff to them (again, this is
> not classified stuff and not hard to find referenced in tech
> magazines). And, for the record, it isn't some vast program from their
> point of view. It is something that can be done, but mostly if they
> are following up on an event with a known connection. I got the
> impression that they wouldn't expect to ever bother to use it. Just a
> tool available.
>
> Gives a name of the company, the name of the project, the name of a
> supervisor that you worked for. Tell me when and why in your miserable
> opinion nothing has changed since you made your, well, lets call it
> 'contribution'. Until then, I will consider you nothing but Mr. Bull.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Why didn't I have any problem knowing exactly what you were talking
about. That, using those terms, was exactly the shop talk from our
analysts and intercept folks.
As you pointed out a lot of this is out there in unclassified sources
and on the net too. What isn't is the day to day conversation, shop
terms, nicknames for shit, etc...
You'd think that Tom would know what a "Ditty Bop" was, right?
Bill C

Date: 19 Feb 2007 14:49:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-7AFAAF.21264518022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Ch_Bh.3535$tD2.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> How about Clinton financing the
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip ?
>
> Sorry, I don't think that quite rises to the level of Bush having the
> NSA spying
> on US citizens, in defiance of FISA rules.

During the 1990's Clinton was monitoring just about every phone conversation
in the USA under the Echelon program. Today we're hearing from asses like
you that the NSA is evil for putting together a database of phone CALLS -
who phoned whom when - as if that was something to be feared.

>> Oh, wait, you were up in arms when Waco occurred - oh, no, that's right,
>> you
>> thought that those bastards got what they deserved for being religious.
>
> Huh, you think the problem with what happened at Waco was due to them
> just being
> "religious?" Well, piles of arms and explosives is a religion with you.

Piles of arms and explosives? The claim was for some 150 rifles and pistols.
There were 81 people living there. Since I have some 5 or 6 rifles and
pistols explain why this number is inconsistent with normal gun ownership.

There were also claims that they had some AK-47's modified to shoot fully
automatic. A local radiator shop guy used to obtain the modification parts
from a southeast Asian source and sold the parts out of his shop LEGALLY.
These parts, to the best of my knowledge, were sold almost exclusively to
cops who wanted to keep some firepower around their own homes. I asked
several of these cops if they paid the automatic weapons tax and they said
no because that would put them on a list of the Treasury Department who
might show up at any time and demand to inspect the weapon.

If someone in the Koresh compound had those easily obtainable parts which
were sold over the internet it wouldn't be surprising. Neither would it be
grounds for murdering 80 people no matter what kind of nut cases they were.

Too bad that you mouth is always bigger than your knowledge.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 11:28:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 11:58 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> > Hap Shaughnessy is also a contender:http://tinyurl.com/2ohqle
>
> You have to give Tom points for stubbornness or
> something, 'cause he always picks his opposite number's
> area of expertise. He argues aboutSIGINTwith Curtis,
> planetary atmospheres with me, GI armor with Bill, ocean
> temperatures with Bill Asher, health care with Chung,
> masters racing with Chang, TT'ing with Kevin Metcalfe ...
>
> I mean, if he mixed it up and argued aboutSIGINTwith
> me, TT'ing with Bill, body armor with Chung, and planets
> with Curtis, maybe he'd win one, but he refuses to take
> the easy way out. I respect that kind of integrity.
> Also, this might require his victims to argue on subjects
> of which they are ignorant, but that's trespassing on
> Tom's area of expertise.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -

Hey Ben
Here's a great article that really explains why I get SO pissed off
at Kunich and those clowns running the current government and DOD:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/columnone/la-me-daily16feb16,1,1122472.story

A higher calling than duty
k Daily wrote on MySpace that he joined the Army to help the
suffering people of Iraq. In death, his words have become a call to
service.
By Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writer
February 16, 2007

Here's one paragraph that resonates for me:

One thing is certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision
to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide
have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19-year-old soldiers
from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest
who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of
representative government and individual rights by placing themselves
between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics.
Oftentimes it is less about how clean your actions are and more about
how pure your intentions are.
re's one paragraph that resonates for me:

He's not really all that uncommon. More articulate, and better
educated than most for sure, but exactly what a US military
professional should be and frequently is. They just don't get press
coverage, and don't want it.
Bill C

This is what we get instead:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,125462,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

Billions Needed for New Armored Trucks
InsideDefense.com NewsStand

Date: 22 Feb 2007 21:09:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tell me Bill, were the BANZAI charges of the Japanese during WW II religious
fanaticism? What makes you and people like you use the "religion" excuse for
such actions instead of reality? When the Spartans threw themselves
suicidally against the approaching Persians do you suppose it was religious
ferver or fear of what would happen if the Persians invasion was completed?

Date: 22 Feb 2007 05:24:39
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 22, 7:26 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:

>
> Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
> Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and anti-American
> Wikipedia:http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Thanks! Hadn't stumbled on that thing yet. I really like this bit from
your link:

5. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most
English speaking users are American.
<snip >
Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places,
even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American
spellings of words.

Oh my GOD british spellings. How distasteful! Especially in the
English language.
Gonna be a pretty tough read for just about everyone if every article
is in the native language of the area it's about.
Maybe that's the point. That way real Americans wouldn't have to, or
even be able to, read about those inferior people and what they did.
Bill C

Date: 21 Feb 2007 20:58:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 9:29 pm, "Bret" <bret.w...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:25 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <a8mot2hev97g82oriu01mfnvvv5bock...@4ax.com>,
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:05:28 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
> > > <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:

> > > What didn't TK do in his life? He's like the renaissance man meets
> > > McGyver meets Remington Steele with a little Steve Jobs thrown in for
> > > kicks.
>
> > > He rules!
>
> > He comes across far too much like Zelig [1] to me. Always just *happened* to have
> > worked at a job doing something that would make him an expert on whatever subject is
> > being discussed.
>
> > I think of him more as Tommy Flanagan.

> Hap Shaughnessy is also a contender:http://tinyurl.com/2ohqle

You have to give Tom points for stubbornness or
something, 'cause he always picks his opposite number's
area of expertise. He argues about SIGINT with Curtis,
planetary atmospheres with me, GI armor with Bill, ocean
temperatures with Bill Asher, health care with Chung,
masters racing with Chang, TT'ing with Kevin Metcalfe ...

I mean, if he mixed it up and argued about SIGINT with
me, TT'ing with Bill, body armor with Chung, and planets
with Curtis, maybe he'd win one, but he refuses to take
the easy way out. I respect that kind of integrity.
Also, this might require his victims to argue on subjects
of which they are ignorant, but that's trespassing on
Tom's area of expertise.

Ben

Date: 27 Feb 2007 22:16:15
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1172120337.507047.213370@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You have to give Tom points for stubbornness or
> something, 'cause he always picks his opposite number's
> area of expertise. He argues about SIGINT with Curtis,
> planetary atmospheres with me, GI armor with Bill, ocean
> temperatures with Bill Asher, health care with Chung,
> masters racing with Chang, TT'ing with Kevin Metcalfe ...
>
> I mean, if he mixed it up and argued about SIGINT with
> me, TT'ing with Bill, body armor with Chung, and planets
> with Curtis, maybe he'd win one, but he refuses to take
> the easy way out. I respect that kind of integrity.
> Also, this might require his victims to argue on subjects
> of which they are ignorant, but that's trespassing on
> Tom's area of expertise.
>

I thought that was Hansen's turf. Is Kunich another one of the Hansen
brothers?

Date: 22 Feb 2007 13:26:07
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> You have to give Tom points for stubbornness or
> something, 'cause he always picks his opposite number's
> area of expertise. He argues about SIGINT with Curtis,
> planetary atmospheres with me, GI armor with Bill, ocean
> temperatures with Bill Asher, health care with Chung,
> masters racing with Chang, TT'ing with Kevin Metcalfe ...

It's part of a larger pattern among nutbars to insist that having studied or
worked in a field actually disqualifies one from expertise. That's because
science has a well-known liberal bias.

Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and anti-American
Wikipedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Date: 22 Feb 2007 18:53:03
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:26:07 +0100, "Robert Chung"
<me@address.invalid > wrote:

>bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
>> You have to give Tom points for stubbornness or
>> something, 'cause he always picks his opposite number's
>> area of expertise. He argues about SIGINT with Curtis,
>> planetary atmospheres with me, GI armor with Bill, ocean
>> temperatures with Bill Asher, health care with Chung,
>> masters racing with Chang, TT'ing with Kevin Metcalfe ...
>
>It's part of a larger pattern among nutbars to insist that having studied or
>worked in a field actually disqualifies one from expertise. That's because
>science has a well-known liberal bias.

It's not just science thats' biased -- reality has a liberal bias.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:52:51
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Robert Chung wrote:

> Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
> Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and
> anti-American Wikipedia:
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

I like this entry:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein

--
Bill Asher

Date: 22 Feb 2007 17:41:58
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <Xns98DF5A5B7FE0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
>
> > Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
> > Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and
> > anti-American Wikipedia:
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
>
> I like this entry:
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein

"Assisted him with loans." Well, they did mention that, give 'em credit. The entry
seems a little light on detail, however.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:57:28
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:41:58 -0800, Howard Kveck wrote:
> "Assisted him with loans." Well, they did mention that, give 'm credit.

I knew what "Assisted him with loans" meant!

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 22 Feb 2007 18:58:52
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

William Asher wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
>> Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and
>> anti-American Wikipedia:
>> http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
>
> I like this entry:
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sex&oldid=15197

Date: 22 Feb 2007 23:35:09
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Robert Chung wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
>>>Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and
>>>anti-American Wikipedia:
>>>http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
>>
>>I like this entry:
>>
>>http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein
>
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sex&oldid=15197
>
>
They forgot an entry:
"Something that good Conservatives dont do."

Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:13:49
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Robert Chung wrote:
> Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
> Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and anti-American
> Wikipedia:
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Can't be much good; there doesn't appear to be an entry for Kunich
detailing all the fields he is an expert in:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=kunich&go=Go

Date: 22 Feb 2007 23:25:09
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Donald Munro wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>>Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
>>Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and anti-American
>>Wikipedia:
>>http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
>
>
> Can't be much good; there doesn't appear to be an entry for Kunich
> detailing all the fields he is an expert in:
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=kunich&go=Go
>

I would say 'Screw all NeoCons...', but that would mean I have to touch
Mann Coulter. ~shudder~

Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:47:50
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Donald Munro wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Speaking of which, that's the reason why conservatives have begun the
>> Conservapedia as an alternative to the anti-Christian and anti-American
>> Wikipedia:
>> http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
>
> Can't be much good; there doesn't appear to be an entry for Kunich
> detailing all the fields he is an expert in:
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=kunich&go=Go
>
>

Look under "Retards."

--
Bill Asher

I know, but damn that felt good.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 20:29:06
From: Bret
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 7:25 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <a8mot2hev97g82oriu01mfnvvv5bock...@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:05:28 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
> > <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > >On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >>Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in
> > >>the
> > >>world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
> > >>that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
>
> > I've got TK in my killfile, but it's amazing the stuff that he seems
> > to be saying.
>
> > What didn't TK do in his life? He's like the renaissance man meets
> > McGyver meets Remington Steele with a little Steve Jobs thrown in for
> > kicks.
>
> > He rules!
>
> He comes across far too much like Zelig [1] to me. Always just *happened* to have
> worked at a job doing something that would make him an expert on whatever subject is
> being discussed.
>
> I think of him more as Tommy Flanagan.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelig
>
> Note this line: "...on the road to recovery, Zelig temporarily develops a
> personality which is intolerant of other people's opinions." Hmm...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Hap Shaughnessy is also a contender:
http://tinyurl.com/2ohqle

Bret

Date: 19 Feb 2007 20:01:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <xNiCh.3992$tD2.3667@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-7AFAAF.21264518022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <Ch_Bh.3535$tD2.1338@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> How about Clinton financing the
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip ?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't think that quite rises to the level of Bush having the
> > NSA spying on US citizens, in defiance of FISA rules.
>
> During the 1990's Clinton was monitoring just about every phone conversation
> in the USA under the Echelon program.

Wrong. The "Echelon Program" was done under the auspicies of the FISA court. The
idea that they had manpower to monitor "just about every phone conversation in the
USA" is so patently ridiculous it isn't funny.

George Tenet testified before Congress on 12 April, 2000:

"I�m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National
Security Agency�

"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to
whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly.
We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as
that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection
in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by
the Justice Department."

Did you notice that "unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court"
part? That's sort of missing under Bush's version of it.

> Today we're hearing from asses like
> you that the NSA is evil for putting together a database of phone CALLS -
> who phoned whom when - as if that was something to be feared.

Is that all they did, Tom? I'd say that you're wrong again - and by a long shot.
Several things to think about (tough for you, I know, but try it): They bypassed the
Fisa court then refused to supply a list of who and what calls were listened to. It
is know by FOIA suits that they were spying on groups who were and are opposed to
their policies, such as Quaker groups. People who were involved in the program
coplained that they believed that what was happening was wrong and illegal. That's
why it got leaked.

The 1978 FISA law makes it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without
judicial oversight, and the admin. never said that the law was unconstitutional.
They asked for changes to it and then pretended they were complying with it. After
they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the admin. claimed that they had
the right to break the law.

To make the difference clear, Tom, the instances that occurred while Clinton was
President were done according to the law while the Bush administration broke the law.

>
> >> Oh, wait, you were up in arms when Waco occurred - oh, no, that's right,
> >> you thought that those bastards got what they deserved for being religious.
> >
> > Huh, you think the problem with what happened at Waco was due to them
> > just being "religious?" Well, piles of arms and explosives is a religion with you.
>
> Piles of arms and explosives? The claim was for some 150 rifles and pistols.
> There were 81 people living there. Since I have some 5 or 6 rifles and
> pistols explain why this number is inconsistent with normal gun ownership.

Amongst the more than 200 weapons catalogued were:

* 19 SGW CAR-AR assault submachine guns (three fitted with silencers), nine
other silencers

* 8 hand grenades and at least 31 other grenade parts and fragments, more than
20 pieces and fragments of rockets (apparently used to make rocket-propelled
grenades) along with 1 sight for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

* 3 Israeli-made IMI Galil assault rifles

* 10 Ruger Mini-14 assault rifles (one with a mounted scope)

* A barrel for a M60 machine gun

* 1 30 mm rocket shell

* 9 FAL assault rifles (three mounted on bipods)

* At least 54 AK-47 or AKS assault rifles (some converted to fully automatic
submachine guns)

* 11 .12-gauge shotguns (one with a sawed-off barrel)

* Dozens of pistols

* Dozens of barrels for M-16s, AR-15s and other weapons

* Gas masks and one chemical warfare suit

* Several Kevlar tactical vests and other body armor and eight Kevlar helmets.

> There were also claims that they had some AK-47's modified to shoot fully
> automatic. A local radiator shop guy used to obtain the modification parts
> from a southeast Asian source and sold the parts out of his shop LEGALLY.
> These parts, to the best of my knowledge, were sold almost exclusively to
> cops who wanted to keep some firepower around their own homes. I asked
> several of these cops if they paid the automatic weapons tax and they said
> no because that would put them on a list of the Treasury Department who
> might show up at any time and demand to inspect the weapon.
>
> If someone in the Koresh compound had those easily obtainable parts which
> were sold over the internet it wouldn't be surprising. Neither would it be
> grounds for murdering 80 people no matter what kind of nut cases they were.

So what about the lathes and mills that were there? The ATF believed that the
Davidians were making the conversion kits with them.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:49:44
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Howard, arguing with you is like talking to the village idiot. You don't
understand Echelon and aren't likely to be able to. You refuse to actually
find out about it and they aren't advertising what it was anyway.

The CLINTON administration made the policy that as long as a HUMAN didn't
listen to a conversation, that it wasn't being "monitored". Hence they
proposed and Clinton funded Echelon which monitors ALL of the communications
(then in the USA and today in the world) using voice recognician software.

But by all means cite what was said in a court somewhere as somehow backing
you up.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:57:59
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <sMECh.4361$tD2.388@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Howard, arguing with you is like talking to the village idiot. You don't
> understand Echelon and aren't likely to be able to. You refuse to actually
> find out about it and they aren't advertising what it was anyway.
>
> The CLINTON administration made the policy that as long as a HUMAN didn't
> listen to a conversation, that it wasn't being "monitored". Hence they
> proposed and Clinton funded Echelon which monitors ALL of the communications
> (then in the USA and today in the world) using voice recognician software.
>
> But by all means cite what was said in a court somewhere as somehow backing
> you up.

Tom, I go by the info that I have and can access. I am aware of what Echelon was
supposed to be about. You claim that "they aren't advertising what it was anyway" -
yet you also claim to know what it was about. As usual, you have the inside knowledge.

Because of your ideology, you want to paint this picture of Bill Clinton listening
in to everyone's calls at the same time you're pooh-poohing Bush's activities as a
simple case of making a little ol' database. For you, there is no worse human on earth
than Clinton. Yeah, whatever.

Interesting to see what's come out of Richard Mellon Scaife's mouth recently. He
spent a fortune trying to destroy Clinton, funding things like the Arkansas project.

http://tinyurl.com/2t3gxm

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 12:07:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:49:44 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>The CLINTON administration made the policy that as long as a HUMAN didn't
>listen to a conversation, that it wasn't being "monitored". Hence they
>proposed and Clinton funded Echelon which monitors ALL of the communications
>(then in the USA and today in the world) using voice recognician software.

All? Obviously the voice of the village idiot that knows nothing about
reality. You're like Bobby Inman, the non-idiot except when he claimed
to read all of the intercept that came through NSA daily.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 20 Feb 2007 09:01:36
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:01:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> The 1978 FISA law makes it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without
>judicial oversight, and the admin. never said that the law was unconstitutional.
>They asked for changes to it and then pretended they were complying with it. After
>they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the admin. claimed that they had
>the right to break the law.

So does the charter that set up NSA - speaking as someone that had to
read the relevant portions at each debriefing. At the time (1970s) we
didn't have the technology to presume to approach an unacceptable
intercept without violating the charter.

Interestingly, technology is what lets them get close. While we used
to shrug and laugh at the conspiracy freaks because we simply did not
have the manpower to do what they suggested, technology can sample and
peek, letting them go through a lot of intercept looking for whatever,
and then getting permission after the fact to look inside, based on
the sampling. Still don't quite believe in conspiracies, but the
capability is getting closer.

If they EVER set up a huge fiber optic backbone running near the
intersection of Route 32 and the Baltimore Washington Parkway, time to
watch your conversations...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:46:01
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <vevlt2tqk8icipqa7t4gadlkl99dvp0knl@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:01:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > The 1978 FISA law makes it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans
> > without judicial oversight, and the admin. never said that the law was
> >unconstitutional. They asked for changes to it and then pretended they were
> > complying with it. After they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
> > the admin. claimed that they had the right to break the law.
>
> So does the charter that set up NSA - speaking as someone that had to
> read the relevant portions at each debriefing. At the time (1970s) we
> didn't have the technology to presume to approach an unacceptable
> intercept without violating the charter.

I had neglected to mention that as I was sort of focused on the FISA aspect of it.

> Interestingly, technology is what lets them get close. While we used
> to shrug and laugh at the conspiracy freaks because we simply did not
> have the manpower to do what they suggested, technology can sample and
> peek, letting them go through a lot of intercept looking for whatever,
> and then getting permission after the fact to look inside, based on
> the sampling. Still don't quite believe in conspiracies, but the
> capability is getting closer.

The "getting permission after the fact" part is a big part of why I (and the NSA
people who thought it was not legal) have problems with the way the Bush admin.
approached this. They could get the warrant anytime up to 72 hours after they start
surveillance, yet they chose not to. They are serious about *not* having anyy udicial
oversight.

And thanks for the insight on this.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:56:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:vevlt2tqk8icipqa7t4gadlkl99dvp0knl@4ax.com...
>
> So does the charter that set up NSA - speaking as someone that had to
> read the relevant portions at each debriefing. At the time (1970s) we
> didn't have the technology to presume to approach an unacceptable
> intercept without violating the charter.

I was working on a homeland security program that used video recognician on
containers. We were using a PC - and we could read the numbers off of
shipping containers that were bad enough that a man could barely read them.

But acres and acres of NSA computers can't understand perfectly
understandable language. Got you.

Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:49:51
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:56:08 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>But acres and acres of NSA computers can't understand perfectly
>understandable language. Got you.

They aren't trying to understand the speech - they are sampling for
intercept tags to decide what to request follow ups on. They don't try
to translate - they only need to identify something on the list, such
as "kill" and "Bush" within 3 seconds in the scan. Then it gets turned
over to a human transcriber, based on the found tags. He or she puts
on the phones, racks up the tape, and does the rest.

And, yeah, the NSA computers can do this, in concert with wideband
tape scanning devices. This isn't news. The issue is how well and in
what volume, and with what safeguards that there isn't a list of
people being assembled based on the tags and not actual vouched
intercept.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:17:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:n09mt21oo4a81824b7blbk7iqa97ba2rbb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:56:08 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>But acres and acres of NSA computers can't understand perfectly
>>understandable language. Got you.
>
> They aren't trying to understand the speech - they are sampling for
> intercept tags to decide what to request follow ups on. They don't try
> to translate - they only need to identify something on the list, such
> as "kill" and "Bush" within 3 seconds in the scan. Then it gets turned
> over to a human transcriber, based on the found tags. He or she puts
> on the phones, racks up the tape, and does the rest.
>
> And, yeah, the NSA computers can do this, in concert with wideband
> tape scanning devices. This isn't news. The issue is how well and in
> what volume, and with what safeguards that there isn't a list of
> people being assembled based on the tags and not actual vouched
> intercept.

Can you tell us what you do for a living? I mean, I find it interesting that
you use the term "intercept tag" instead of speech recognician. I also find
it interesting that you understand that it is actually looking at the
language - something that I've worked with before - but are calling it
something else.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:12:21
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Can you tell us what you do for a living?

He's a bike mechanic working undercover for the homeland security so he
can report all those evil terrorists whose bikes come in under the UCI
limit.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:06:59
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:12:21 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>He's a bike mechanic working undercover for the homeland security so he
>can report all those evil terrorists whose bikes come in under the UCI
>limit.

It pays better than you expect with a government retirement, and I get
to keep any bikes confiscated. Frankly, I think everything made by R.
Sachs in the last ten years is a bit suspicious. Make that twenty.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 20 Feb 2007 16:29:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:17:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>Can you tell us what you do for a living? I mean, I find it interesting that
>you use the term "intercept tag" instead of speech recognician. I also find
>it interesting that you understand that it is actually looking at the
>language - something that I've worked with before - but are calling it
>something else.

If you don't understand what a tag is (versus anything like an attempt
to scan for recognized content), I don't have the time to explain it
to you. The term 'tag' is in common usage here, the priy difference
from the more normal usage is that it isn't deliberately embedded, but
a characteristic sufficiently unique that it can be found and used in
the same manner. And since the purpose is to winnow a large amount of
intercept into a smaller amount that would be expected to be useful
intercept, it is a tag for intercept, one that you can use to locate
the item on a broadband tape, so that an intercept person can go back
and listen.

Its not speech recognition, it is pattern recognition. Searchable
patterns used to separate the chaff from the wheat. It was used on
general radio signals way before it was used on speech, in the same
way we once used machines to listen for, locate and ID different types
of radio signals on searchable tapes, in order to go back later and
further investigate the signal.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:3gpmt2hoeqp91rai1mg6bearrlfbosr0uq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:17:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>Can you tell us what you do for a living? I mean, I find it interesting
>>that
>>you use the term "intercept tag" instead of speech recognician. I also
>>find
>>it interesting that you understand that it is actually looking at the
>>language - something that I've worked with before - but are calling it
>>something else.
>
> If you don't understand what a tag is (versus anything like an attempt
> to scan for recognized content), I don't have the time to explain it
> to you.

Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in the
world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

> Its not speech recognition, it is pattern recognition. Searchable
> patterns used to separate the chaff from the wheat. It was used on
> general radio signals way before it was used on speech, in the same
> way we once used machines to listen for, locate and ID different types
> of radio signals on searchable tapes, in order to go back later and
> further investigate the signal.

Well, I suppose it went over my head what you are trained for and work at.
Certainly it has nothing to do with understanding what the hell speech
recignician is.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:05:28
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in the
>world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
>that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

Bullshit, Mr. Bull. I can point out where I worked at NSA. The
unclassified part of my orders says that I worked as a Chinese radio
intercept at the 7th R.R.F.S. in Ramasun, Thailand. It really
happened. No make believe - why would I, nothing special about it.
Went there a Spec 5, left a SSG with a couple of ordinary ribbons.

I live about ten miles from NSA now and have several neighbors and
friends that work at NSA. I know the group that my source works now.
This isn't even particularly interesting stuff to them (again, this is
not classified stuff and not hard to find referenced in tech
magazines). And, for the record, it isn't some vast program from their
point of view. It is something that can be done, but mostly if they
are following up on an event with a known connection. I got the
impression that they wouldn't expect to ever bother to use it. Just a
tool available.

Gives a name of the company, the name of the project, the name of a
supervisor that you worked for. Tell me when and why in your miserable
opinion nothing has changed since you made your, well, lets call it
'contribution'. Until then, I will consider you nothing but Mr. Bull.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:37:17
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:qrjot2pnvhps32890dkknffuc7pi38un0d@4ax.com...
>
> Gives a name of the company, the name of the project, the name of a
> supervisor that you worked for. Tell me when and why in your miserable
> opinion nothing has changed since you made your, well, lets call it
> 'contribution'. Until then, I will consider you nothing but Mr. Bull.

And there you go again wiggling away from what you actually do for a living.
I can only assume that it is far enough away from what you're talking about
that it would be plain to everyone that you're even more mouth than you
appear to be. But don't worry, the third time is the charm - I now don't
need to know if you know what you're talking about because you so plainly
don't.

Date: 21 Feb 2007 10:16:19
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:37:17 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>And there you go again wiggling away from what you actually do for a living.
>I can only assume that it is far enough away from what you're talking about
>that it would be plain to everyone that you're even more mouth than you
>appear to be.

Mr. Bull, my point was that I was repeating what someone else was
saying and being pretty clear about that to anyone else but you.
Apparently I have to give up on the theories that you are just so
closed minded that you can't read for comprehension and it is simply
that you aren't all that bright.

For the record, I am currently a controller and HR manager for a
genetic testing lab in Baltimore, specializing in immigration testing,
forensics testing and clinical research development for major
biochemical companies. I also am the controller for the related
non-profit that does therapeutic aphaeresis treatments in the
Baltimore- Washington area. I also do consulting in accounting
systems, including the IT set-up. I am a member of the AICPA, MACPA
and IMA, as well as a certified technician in four mid-level
accounting systems and two medical information systems.

That doesn't mean that I don't understand what and how intercept is
done when I'm talking to a mid-level GS guy from NSA when we're
drinking beer and watching the yland-Clemson game. I did intercept
for 3 1/2 years in the field for the ASA/Intelligence Command and 2
years of analysis at NSA, almost all Asia stuff (although I also was
assigned for geographical reasons and the hard stripes on my uniform
to support the 82nd Airborne in the mideast). I did three extensive
broadband comm sec assignments as senior trick chief (ie only SSG
available): final weeks before and through the fall of Saigon,
Mayaguez, and some Laotian stuff that will remain nameless. I've
carried a weapon for other than shooting targets for qualification.
Figure it out or not, won't go any further than that. I've had to swap
a carboned firing pin in the field and I'm guessing you never did.

I was a trick chief my last month or so for the remote Sino-Viet war
intercept and I've listened to a MiG pilot take it down from trying to
shoot a SR71 out of the sky, riding a rock when his last charge didn't
ignite the fuel. I've also ran radar blips on a SR71 run, which is
about as difficult an assignment as you get, and did it well. OTOH, a
kid ten years younger than me did it better, so I can't brag too much.
And I listened to Chinese tank drivers fry in 5 second loops, over and
over, because that's when they break code, until the voice actuated
mikes failed. Try that for a while, Mr. Bull. maybe like 12 hours a
day for a few weeks...

Don't bother threatening to call NSA - none of the above is remotely
classified anymore. Been debriefed...

Won't claim to have invented anything, but I did run the installation
of the medical system in the DC Jail and Lorton system, in places
where I had subcontractors walk out after a day. That took 2 1/2 years
and I'm guessing someone like you would have lasted a day, maybe.

But I'm old and easy now, ried with a kid grown and gone and I
don't much worry about impressing anyone. Then, again, I don't have
to. Its enough that the kid went from thinking I knew nothing to
thinking I make actually know something. That's pretty much a life's
work there. That and being ried for 23 years now (my mother is
still surprised by that), to an oncology nurse that is a better person
than I'll ever be.

The above is because you seem to think it is more important who says
something than what is said. You asked for it, you got it. And here's
a surprise for someone like you. The above doesn't change, unless I
move to another job. My history today, unlike yours, will be the same
history I have tomorrow. And it doesn't make anything I say more true,
or less.

Now go back to trying to impress people with what you do. Excuse me if
I fail to be impressed, Mr. Bull.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 Feb 2007 09:38:12
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:05:28 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
<curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>wrote:
>
>>Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in the
>>world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
>>that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

I've got TK in my killfile, but it's amazing the stuff that he seems
to be saying.

What didn't TK do in his life? He's like the renaissance man meets
McGyver meets Remington Steele with a little Steve Jobs thrown in for
kicks.

He rules!
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 Feb 2007 18:25:57
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <a8mot2hev97g82oriu01mfnvvv5bockvd4@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:05:28 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
> <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:30 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Give me a break. I worked for the largest engineering consulting firm in
> >>the
> >>world and did some speech recognician work. Using that term is a sure sign
> >>that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
>
> I've got TK in my killfile, but it's amazing the stuff that he seems
> to be saying.
>
> What didn't TK do in his life? He's like the renaissance man meets
> McGyver meets Remington Steele with a little Steve Jobs thrown in for
> kicks.
>
> He rules!

He comes across far too much like Zelig [1] to me. Always just *happened* to have
worked at a job doing something that would make him an expert on whatever subject is
being discussed.

I think of him more as Tommy Flanagan.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelig

Note this line: "...on the road to recovery, Zelig temporarily develops a
personality which is intolerant of other people's opinions." Hmm...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Feb 2007 13:47:24
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 11:47 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:30 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I've meant to ask, TK: You recently said "I'm an engineer". Two
> > questions, actually-- what degree(s) do you hold, and from what
> > institution(s)?
>
> > Did you use the GI Bill?
>
> Well - it's not a question directed at me, but I'm willing to give
> this a stab anyways.

No need. Only those with 5,000 or more Usenet posts are asked for
professional credentials. And then only in certain special
circumstances.

For example: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=3txmJxMAAAANgBBgUwG_r7LXrconLiLgWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww

Thank you.

Baloney slicer off. --D-y

Date: 17 Feb 2007 09:47:10
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 7:30 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:

> I've meant to ask, TK: You recently said "I'm an engineer". Two
> questions, actually-- what degree(s) do you hold, and from what
> institution(s)?
>
> Did you use the GI Bill?

Well - it's not a question directed at me, but I'm willing to give
this a stab anyways.

I have a B.S. in electrical engineering (aka EECS) with a minor in
English literature from the University of California at Berkeley. I
never really raced (maybe one criterium where I spun out in a corner),
but I did pay dues and typically rode a couple of times a week with
Cal Cycling. I also have a M.S. in electrical engineering from Santa
Clara University.

I did what anyone with the means would do. I let my parents pay for
my education, although I did get a bit of financial aid for one year.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 07:30:53
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=

Here's a vision for you. It's nothing new, either:

http://www.alfranken.com/page/content/videoMessage

I've meant to ask, TK: You recently said "I'm an engineer". Two
questions, actually-- what degree(s) do you hold, and from what
institution(s)?

Did you use the GI Bill?

That's three, three questions in regard to your CV and use of social
programs. Thank you. As ever, --D-y

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:49:37
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171726253.272656.45180@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

> On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> I've meant to ask, TK: You recently said "I'm an engineer". Two
> questions, actually-- what degree(s) do you hold, and from what
> institution(s)?

Don't forget, he's an engineer *and* a scientist.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/734265e137637f61?hl

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Feb 2007 07:17:06
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=

Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
too. That's real news.
I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
Greg would be happy to tell you how they are all pretty much equally
bad and are in violation of what used to be the Constitution.
I'd agree with a hell of a lot of it too.
Bill C

Date: 17 Feb 2007 23:04:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>
> Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
> too. That's real news.

Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
hope to balance the comments here.

> I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
> that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.

You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
that they were only letting her know the rules?

Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
postings appear in the same vein.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 09:27:02
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Kveck Schwartz-bot wrote:

> "they're gonna come take my stuff!"

I reckon you love the beauty of the income tax. In some contorted way
of thinking, you've decided that seizing assets at the instant of
transfer is somehow not seizing them at all.

Dooiii

Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:27:46
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 21, 5:55 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> ... quasi socialism ...(which, yes, I do support, more and
> more as I grow older,...

I nominate that for the most disgusting comment of the day.

> I outgrew Ayn Rand a long, long time ago and actually
> think people are motivated by something else other
> than fear, greed and self-interest.

If you really believed that then you would not support socialism.

In fact, you exactly believe in fear, greed, and selfishness. That's
why you want to redistribute wealth at the end of a gun barrel. You
have no faith in the better motives, morals, and ethics of human
beings at large. Support what you want, but cut out the doublespeak.

"Actions speak louder than words." -- BF, 1759

Date: 22 Feb 2007 08:36:05
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 21 Feb 2007 14:27:46 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com >
wrote:

>I nominate that for the most disgusting comment of the day.

And what disgusts me is the need on the part of Calvinists (of any
religious stripe) and "pure capitalist" in punishing people,
especially when it comes to support programs. What sickens me almost
as much is that the punishments priily introduce inefficiencies
into the programs and damage or destroy peoples' lives - for no other
reason than the "Cal and cap" group can feel happier or more satisfied
that 'those people' aren't getting anything without pain.

Of course, the fact is most people in the U.S. also support our form
of quasi-socialism. You obviously need to find somewhere else to live
your fantasy life. Perhaps you can find an island somewhere.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 22 Feb 2007 23:23:28
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007 14:27:46 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I nominate that for the most disgusting comment of the day.
>
>
> And what disgusts me is the need on the part of Calvinists (of any
> religious stripe) and "pure capitalist" in punishing people,
> especially when it comes to support programs. What sickens me almost
> as much is that the punishments priily introduce inefficiencies
> into the programs and damage or destroy peoples' lives - for no other
> reason than the "Cal and cap" group can feel happier or more satisfied
> that 'those people' aren't getting anything without pain.
>
> Of course, the fact is most people in the U.S. also support our form
> of quasi-socialism. You obviously need to find somewhere else to live
> your fantasy life. Perhaps you can find an island somewhere.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

I made that comment to my wife (an RN) that it is funny as hell that
people in this country:
1 - Accuse you of being a Communist if you support something like
National Health Care (Get it RIGHT, morons! It is Socilaism!)

2 - This country (i.e. the Govt) has been practicing various forms of
Socialism for YEARS! Socail Security, Medicare/Medicaid, UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE!

My wife just shakes her head at them and laughs.

Date: 23 Feb 2007 16:20:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:erm51a0nv@enews2.newsguy.com...
> (Get it RIGHT, morons! It is Socilaism!)

Thanks for the demonstration.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 15:47:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Hey, we understand Curtis - you can't take care of yourself so you want
someone else to.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 11:26:31
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:47:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>Hey, we understand Curtis - you can't take care of yourself so you want
>someone else to.

No, actually, you don't.

It comes from when I was the CFO of Park Circle Medical in downtown
Baltimore and had to explain the options available to a women with
diabetes. Several months later I walk through the door and the smell
was so bad that I staggered (yeah, literally). One of the nurses
looked up as I passed and said the woman was probably going to lose
her leg. Turns out that she put off going to the hospital because she
was the one with the apartment - when she went in, her daughter and
grandchild were put out on the street. You would call it taking care
of the excess population.

(Side note: recently a woman took in her daughter's children after the
daughter was murdered and one of the first reactions of the city was
to notify her that she would have to now move out of her apartment. No
doubt Mr. Bull and Stateslave would say that it served her right.)

It comes from when I was Director of Finance at Charlestown Community
Center and explaining options to an 80 year old man and his wife of
78, 79. They should have been preparing to celebrate their 60
anniversary, but instead they were discussing a divorce so they could
put her in the nursing home. People that worked all their lives, saved
and did the right things, but they needed to be punished so the Cavs
and Caps could feel good before doling out the money.

It comes from when I was controller at L.I.F.E., Inc. in Catonsville,
MD and we helped a family give up all connection to their 265 pound
son with an IQ of about 80 (a 4 by 4 in the terminology). To get help,
he had to be a ward of the court.

It comes from when I was doing the DC Jail project and the trustee
told me about getting arrested so he could have his dental work done
in a timely manner. He was no angel and he knew the system well, but
spending three weeks in the DC Jail for dental work means the system
is broken or there is no system.

No, I don't want someone to take care of me. Its just unlike you and
Stateslave, I don't mind helping someone else - without penalty,
without punishment, just helping.

To really gripe your ass, I'll tell you another weakness. I carry two
dollar bills in my right hand pocket and three in the center
compartment of my Prius, so I have no excuse for not giving when
someone on the street asks me for a handout.

I think I'll take the pledge here. While I won't killfile you, I
pledge to all concerned that I won't reply to anymore of your posts.
Have fun, Mr. Bull. Its your mean, little life, do whatever...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 22 Feb 2007 16:30:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Of course, the fact is most people in the U.S. also support our form
> of quasi-socialism. You obviously need to find somewhere else to live
> your fantasy life. Perhaps you can find an island somewhere.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/1158240

Date: 18 Feb 2007 22:25:58
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> postings appear in the same vein.
>

Give us a LITTLE credit. At least we wouldn't rape Laura afterwards.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:54:35
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <VRLBh.2770$_73.988@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
> >
> > Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
> > too. That's real news.
>
> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
> hope to balance the comments here.

If you're a "moderate" then I'm Eddie Merckx. The very fact that you think you're
a "moderate" shows how skewed your perspective is. Who do you think is a radical
right winger, Tom?

> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
> that they were only letting her know the rules?

Just like I said - you'll continue to flog this dead horse in the face of any and
all reason. That's spelled "ideologue."

> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> postings appear in the same vein.

Only you would think that, Tom. You're absolutely batshit crazy.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Feb 2007 18:40:56
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 5:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171670652.686910.237220@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> > be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> > service without being a direct answer to a question.
>
> Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
> BIGGER.

OK then. where's the proof? Taking the boilerplate language pieced
together by an attorney (Asst Sec of Def Wilkie) and turning that into
a denial of a request rather than an outline of the Speaker's travel
policy? I mean, who writes verbatim twice, "title 31 of the United
States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
Congress." It's pretty clear that the Sergeant at Arms relayed the
message to the DoD, and I'm pretty sure that he would have stopped her
if he thought any of her requests were over the top.

So what if the Speaker's staff or the Sergeant at Arms asked who else
could come along? I don't travel a lot, but when I do, I ask my
employer what I can and can't do. So her staff probably asked what
the limits are. It probably doesn't help that Rep Murtha got so
combative about it, but there was no way the DoD was going to give her
a C-32 for her weekend flights home and I'm pretty sure she already
knew it (if she even had any idea what it was).

In one way I guess Speaker Pelosi will get MORE AND BIGGER. The plane
best suited for Speaker Hastert's needs was a C-20B (83 ft long), and
the DoD accordingly assigned that to his detail most often. Speaker
Pelosi's needs are best met by C-37A (96 ft long), and she'll
probably get that the most often. Complaining about that is like
bitching about taking a commuter flight in a 737 while someone flying
cross country or overseas is doing so in a 747 or 767. You choose the
right tool for the job. This is already a non-issue with the
Pentagon, which has already sent Speaker Pelosi the policy and will
provide similar service to her that they provided for Speaker Hastert.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:42:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171680056.802936.222110@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 16, 5:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1171670652.686910.237220@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > > These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> > > be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> > > service without being a direct answer to a question.
> >
> > Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
> > BIGGER.
>
> OK then. where's the proof?

That's always the hard part with Tom. Just so you know... Anyway, the way it came
out seems to indicate that the entire thing is a smear: an unsourced leak out of the
DoD to the GOP's party paper, the Washington Times.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Feb 2007 05:55:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=

Date: 16 Feb 2007 16:58:07
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 4:04 pm, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
> take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
> be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
> service.

Forgot one more possibility - a "boilerplate" response. My quoting of
the letter wasn't necessarily meant as any statement of fact per se,
but that this was supposedly the Pelosi critics' "smoking gun".

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:34:54
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171673887.851438.286620@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 16, 4:04 pm, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> > be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> > service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
> > take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
> > be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
> > service.
>
> Forgot one more possibility - a "boilerplate" response. My quoting of
> the letter wasn't necessarily meant as any statement of fact per se,
> but that this was supposedly the Pelosi critics' "smoking gun".

It is a "boilerplate" response. I can't recall where I saw it but some of the
wording was the same for a letter of clarification sent to Hastert. Portions of that
are on line somewhere.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Feb 2007 16:04:12
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171646473.302205.83970@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:YOURhoward-EBA14A.20324313022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >> In article <6cr3t2db6pdubvahjbu44olphedl4hg...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
> >> >>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> The only difference is that she would
> >> >>>> need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to
> >> >>>> fly
> >> >>>> further.
> >> >>>> It's really pretty simple.
> >> >>> Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
> >> >>> $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
> >> >> The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to
> >> >> think
> >> >> it isn't
> >> >> worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of
> >> >> planning a
> >> >> refueling
> >> >> stop, in addition to the logistics of security.
>
> >> > I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.
>
> >> It's not nearly as amusing as watching you tell us whatPelosiis
> >> thinking. It is less predictable, however.
>
> > Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
> > response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
> > a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. <sarcasm mode off>
>
> >http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Let...
>
> > I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.
>
> > ** **
>
> > THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
> > WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300
>
> > The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
> > Speaker
> > United States House of Representatives
> > Washington, DC 20515
>
> > Dear Madam Speaker:
>
> > I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
> > to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
> > regard to airlift support for your travel.
>
> > We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
> > United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
> > 110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
> > shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
> > Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
> > previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
> > Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
> > Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
> > basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
> > line of succession.
>
> > This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
> > district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
> > to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
> > aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
> > guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
> > between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
> > and availability.
>
> > Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
> > support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
> > missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
> > the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
> > Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
> > unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
> > expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
> > official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
> > government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
> > authorized.
>
> > As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
> > resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
> > for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
> > 31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
> > rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
> > of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
> > delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
> > opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
> > Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
> > Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
> > Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.
>
> > Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
> > We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
> > 100th Congress.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > Robert L. Wilkie.
> > Assistant Secretary of Defense
> > (Legislative Affairs)
>
> Now this is pretty funny - this was the RESPONSE of the Department of
> Defense to Pelosi's request for a plane large enough to move her and her
> pals and her family and her hanger's on non-stop to California.
>
> Of course anyone that could READ would notice that the DoD made the
> following points:
>
> 1) "We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
> United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
> Congress."
>
> Do you suppose they quoted the law for no reason whatsoever?
>
> 2) "Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
> support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle missions."
>
> Gee why did they make the points that they would transports FAMILY MEMBERS
> ONLY?
>
> 3) "Non-U.S. government travelers, other than your immediate family, will
> not be authorized."
>
> I suppose they just pulled this one out of their ass just to be polite to
> Pelosi.

These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
service.

I don't have any problem if she or Hastert ever asked for
clarification about what the rules for this shuttle service were as it
applies to flying on the small corporate style jets. I also have no
problem is she had the SoA ask about staffers (Hastert had two aides
on most flights) and/or friends/members of Congress accompanying her.
The main thing that has never been demonstrated is that she ever
specifically asked for a C-32/757 or C-40/737. Speaker Pelosi's
critics make it sound as if she requested "Air Force Three" so that
she could fly around dozens of political supporters or dole out dozens
of seats on her weekly ride as a favor. There's no evidence to
support that.

> I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Pelosi
> made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down the
> policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who aren't
> even bright enough to recognize it.

"Laying down the policy" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as
"turning down an unreasonable request".

BTW - reports are that Speaker Hastert had one of these jets
dispatched to fly in Rep John Shimkus (in charge of the House page
program) to speak at a Monday press conference during the k Foley
page scandal. A commercial flight probably wouldn't have made it in
time. Now that's a real waste of money using the DoD's resources to
fly in someone for some political spin doctoring.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 17:42:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 16 Feb 2007 16:04:12 -0800, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
>be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
>service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
>take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
>be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
>service.

New speaker asks a question, you provide a complete answer with
references so that they have a background. No different than we do
when we get a new member of the board - we let them know what is paid,
what isn't and who to talk to in a special case.

Other than for Mr. Bull, not hard to understand at all.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 17 Feb 2007 01:27:47
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171670652.686910.237220@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> service without being a direct answer to a question.

Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
BIGGER. But then your only interest is ignoring her corruption. Bet you
didn't see anything wrong with her trying to push Unendited Co-conspirator
Murtha for high office.

>> I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the
>> Pelosi
>> made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down
>> the
>> policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who
>> aren't
>> even bright enough to recognize it.
>
> "Laying down the policy" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as
> "turning down an unreasonable request".

So despite what it actually looks like you're willing to accept the excuses
no matter how rediculous.

> BTW - reports are

Hmm, THOSE reports are accurate but the ones about Pelosi and Broomstick One
aren't.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:39:43
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <nSsBh.2948$tD2.1430@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171670652.686910.237220@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 16, 2:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> > be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> > service without being a direct answer to a question.
>
> Or it could be like everyone else is saying - that Pelosi wanted MORE AND
> BIGGER. But then your only interest is ignoring her corruption. Bet you
> didn't see anything wrong with her trying to push Unendited Co-conspirator
> Murtha for high office.

(snip)

> So despite what it actually looks like you're willing to accept the excuses
> no matter how rediculous.
>

Right on cue, the foaming. Good call, Curtis! Granted it was an easy call. By the
way, what is an "Unendited Co-conspirator?" I guesss you mean "unindicted" but who
really knows? If that's what you do mean, care to explain?

(Psst - it's "ridiculous" without an "e")

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Feb 2007 12:45:14
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 3:10 am, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com > wrote:

> Uh-oh... you provided an legitimate citation. euncuh will ne frothing
> becuase he cant back up his claims now.

I read excerpts of the response, but the entire letter doesn't seem
like anything more than a clarification of her transportation
privileges as speaker. I know before I travel on business I'll ask to
clarify what the meal reimbursement procedures are (do I get per
diem?) or whether or not I should take a taxi/shuttle/car service to/
from airports.

Here's one part of the letter that Pelosi critics seized upon:

> This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
> district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
> to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
> aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
> guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
> between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
> and availability.

I can pretty much see what that means. "7 to 10" passengers seems to
describe the smaller VIP aircraft - the C-21/Learjet, C-20B
(Gulfstream III), or C-37A (Gulfstream V). "Non-stop service" would
depend on a combination of aircraft type and ambient conditions. The
C-21 will never make it non-stop to San Francisco from D.C.. The
C-20B might be able to do so under ideal conditions. The C-37A can
make it under all expected conditions short of taking off into a
tornado.

The part on whether or not she can take the plane to political events
or bring along member of Congress seems legitimate. The Pres/VP/First
Lady get to use their planes in such a manner, although I believe they
have to reimburse (to what degree?) the Treasury for their use. So
that's not allowed for the Speaker - big deal. I wouldn't be all that
upset if Speaker Pelosi wants to take along another member of
Congress, like Senators Feinstein or Boxer, who live near her
district. They could actually get some government work done or engage
in some "girl talk" if that's what they want. Heck - take my
representative (Ellen Tauscher) and maybe they can mend some fences.

And for those wondering, CODEL is code for "Congressional
Delegation". I have the feeling that Speaker Pelosi could conceivably
ask for and get a C-32 if she were leading a Congressional Delegation
to Europe/Asia/etc. There was never a question as to whether members
of Congress could travel in the DoD's version of a 757, but whether or
not it might be used for her regular shuttle service home (which I
don't believe she asked for). That's one of the purposes for this
particular plane

<http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90 >

C-32

Mission
The C-32 provides safe, comfortable and reliable transportation for
our nation's leaders to locations around the world. The priy
customers are the vice president, using the distinctive call sign "Air
Force Two," the first lady, and members of the Cabinet and Congress.

Date: 16 Feb 2007 10:37:19
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 9:21 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Let...

Just correcting some typos:

** **

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
regard to airlift support for your travel.

We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
line of succession.

This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
and availability.

Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
authorized.

As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.

Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
110th Congress.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Wilkie
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs)

Date: 16 Feb 2007 11:10:52
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

y_p_w wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:21 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Let...
>
>
> Just correcting some typos:
>
> ** **
>
> THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
> WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300
>
> The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
> Speaker
> United States House of Representatives
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Dear Madam Speaker:
>
> I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
> to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
> regard to airlift support for your travel.
>
> We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
> United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
> 110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
> shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
> Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
> previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
> Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
> Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
> basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
> line of succession.
>
> This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
> district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
> to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
> aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
> guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
> between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
> and availability.
>
> Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
> support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
> missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
> the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
> Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
> unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
> expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
> official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
> government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
> authorized.
>
> As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
> resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
> for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
> 31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
> rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
> of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
> delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
> opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
> Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
> Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
> Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.
>
> Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
> We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
> 110th Congress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robert L. Wilkie
> Assistant Secretary of Defense
> (Legislative Affairs)
>

Uh-oh... you provided an legitimate citation. euncuh will ne frothing
becuase he cant back up his claims now.

Date: 16 Feb 2007 14:56:41
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:10:52 +0000, Joe Cipale <joec@aracnet.com >
wrote:

>Uh-oh... you provided an legitimate citation. euncuh will ne frothing
>becuase he cant back up his claims now.

Its never bothered him before. OTOH, he probably will be frothing. But
that's just what is, is.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 17 Feb 2007 16:52:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Its never bothered him before. OTOH, he probably will be frothing.

If he was a beer you could say he gives good head.

Date: 16 Feb 2007 09:21:14
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >news:YOURhoward-EBA14A.20324313022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> In article <6cr3t2db6pdubvahjbu44olphedl4hg...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
> >>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The only difference is that she would
> >>>> need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly
> >>>> further.
> >>>> It's really pretty simple.
> >>> Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
> >>> $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
> >> The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think
> >> it isn't
> >> worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a
> >> refueling
> >> stop, in addition to the logistics of security.
>
> > I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.
>
> It's not nearly as amusing as watching you tell us whatPelosiis
> thinking. It is less predictable, however.

Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. <sarcasm mode off >

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Letter.pdf

I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.

** **

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
regard to airlift support for your travel.

We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
line of succession.

This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
and availability.

Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
authorized.

As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.

Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
100th Congress.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Wilkie.
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs)

Date: 16 Feb 2007 22:51:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171646473.302205.83970@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 7:07 am, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> >news:YOURhoward-EBA14A.20324313022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> In article <6cr3t2db6pdubvahjbu44olphedl4hg...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
>> >>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> The only difference is that she would
>> >>>> need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to
>> >>>> fly
>> >>>> further.
>> >>>> It's really pretty simple.
>> >>> Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
>> >>> $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
>> >> The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to
>> >> think
>> >> it isn't
>> >> worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of
>> >> planning a
>> >> refueling
>> >> stop, in addition to the logistics of security.
>>
>> > I love watching you tell us what the DoD is thinking.
>>
>> It's not nearly as amusing as watching you tell us whatPelosiis
>> thinking. It is less predictable, however.
>
> Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
> response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
> a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. <sarcasm mode off>
>
> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Letter.pdf
>
> I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.
>
> ** **
>
> THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
> WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300
>
> The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
> Speaker
> United States House of Representatives
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Dear Madam Speaker:
>
> I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
> to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
> regard to airlift support for your travel.
>
> We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
> United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the
> 110th Congress. Further, we will provide Presidentially-directed
> shuttle support as a courtesy in recognition of your position as the
> Speaker of the House, and consistent with that support provided to
> previous Speakers of the House. Since the plan for continuity of the
> Presidency does not exclude routine use of military airlift for the
> Speaker of the House, this support is provided without any specific
> basis to your standing as a Presidential successor or position in the
> line of succession.
>
> This shuttle support will be limited to airlift between your home
> district and Washington D.C.. While every effort will always be made
> to provide non-stop shuttle support, such support is subject to
> aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be
> guaranteed. Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate
> between 7 and not more than 10 passengers, depending on aircraft type
> and availability.
>
> Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
> support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle
> missions. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to
> the Treasury of the United States at the rate determined by the
> Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but not less than
> unrestricted coach fare for airfare and for all meals or incidental
> expenses (to exclude travel of your husband, who may travel for
> official protocol purposes when accompanying you). Non-U.S.
> government travelers, other than your immediate family, will not be
> authorized.
>
> As with previous speakers, we cannot support expenditure of DoD
> resources for your travel to or from political events. DoD support
> for travel to other official events must be in accordance with title
> 31 of the United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel
> rules of the 110th Congress. With regard to travel of other Members
> of Congress (including Members of the California Congressional
> delegation) on these shuttle missions, we will need a written advisory
> opinion on eligibility and reimbursement, issued by the Committee on
> Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on House
> Administration before we can support travel of other Members of
> Congress on your Presidentially-directed shuttle missions.
>
> Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
> We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
> 100th Congress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robert L. Wilkie.
> Assistant Secretary of Defense
> (Legislative Affairs)

Now this is pretty funny - this was the RESPONSE of the Department of
Defense to Pelosi's request for a plane large enough to move her and her
pals and her family and her hanger's on non-stop to California.

Of course anyone that could READ would notice that the DoD made the
following points:

1) "We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
Congress."

Do you suppose they quoted the law for no reason whatsoever?

2) "Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle missions."

Gee why did they make the points that they would transports FAMILY MEMBERS
ONLY?

3) "Non-U.S. government travelers, other than your immediate family, will
not be authorized."

I suppose they just pulled this one out of their ass just to be polite to
Pelosi.

I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Pelosi
made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down the
policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who aren't
even bright enough to recognize it.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:34:58
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <iAqBh.2903$tD2.2847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171646473.302205.83970@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > Maybe I don't know what she's thinking, but here's the Pentagon's
> > response letter. I guess this is the "smoking gun" that she requested
> > a jumbo jet with sleeping quarters. <sarcasm mode off>
> >
> > http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070208_Pelosi_DoD_Letter.pdf
> >
> > I typed the following, since it was a scan of a letter.
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
> > WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1300
> >
> > The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
> > Speaker
> > United States House of Representatives
> > Washington, DC 20515
> >
> > Dear Madam Speaker:
> >
> > I am pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's response
> > to your staff's January 23, 2007 request for policy guidance with
> > regard to airlift support for your travel.

(snip of letter)

> > Than you for providing an opportunity for us to clarify these rules.
> > We look forward to working closely with you and your staff during the
> > 100th Congress.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Robert L. Wilkie.
> > Assistant Secretary of Defense
> > (Legislative Affairs)
>
> Now this is pretty funny - this was the RESPONSE of the Department of
> Defense to Pelosi's request for a plane large enough to move her and her
> pals and her family and her hanger's on non-stop to California.

No, Tom. It was actually a responnse to a request for guidance on the matter made
by (1) Sergeant at Arms Livingood and (2) Pelosi's staff. Livingood made the initial
request for guidance.

> Of course anyone that could READ would notice that the DoD made the
> following points:
>
> 1) "We will support your requested travel consistent with title 31 of the
> United States Code (Section 1108(g)) and the CODEL travel rules of the 110th
> Congress."
>
> Do you suppose they quoted the law for no reason whatsoever?

When clarifying policy, that is standard procedure.

> 2) "Also, upon your written request, on a trip by trip basis, we will
> support travel of your immediate family members on these shuttle missions."
>
> Gee why did they make the points that they would transports FAMILY MEMBERS
> ONLY?

It doesn't say "only."

> 3) "Non-U.S. government travelers, other than your immediate family, will
> not be authorized."
>
> I suppose they just pulled this one out of their ass just to be polite to
> Pelosi.

When clarifying policy, it would be standard procedure.

> I have to thank you for demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Pelosi
> made precisely the demands that are rumored and that the DoD laid down the
> policy to her. Rebuke is such fun especially coming from people who aren't
> even bright enough to recognize it.

A letter that's designed to clarify policy to a person who would be new to using
the thing the policy covers would be seen as a "rebuke" by someone who has already
made his mind up about what happened, no matter the circumstances. Are you saying
SoA Livingood is a liar? How about the fact that the White House, through Tony Snow,
indicates that the tack you're on is wrong?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Feb 2007 15:34:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-56D201.20345817022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> No, Tom. It was actually a responnse to a request for guidance on the
> matter made
> by (1) Sergeant at Arms Livingood and (2) Pelosi's staff. Livingood made
> the initial
> request for guidance.

Baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaa.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 21:11:43
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <mm_Bh.3540$tD2.743@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-56D201.20345817022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > No, Tom. It was actually a responnse to a request for guidance on the
> > matter made by (1) Sergeant at Arms Livingood and (2) Pelosi's staff. Livingood
> > made the initial request for guidance.
>
> Baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaa.

Well, at last Tom responds in his native tongue.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Feb 2007 10:36:31
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaa.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Well, at last Tom responds in his native tongue.

A translation from a sheep lover would be appreciated.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 16:15:33
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 14, 5:11 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:54 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to
> > acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty,
> > burned dirty.
>
> Any history , especially of Victorian London, along with numerous
> works of fiction describe the impenetrable "fogs" that reeked of
> sulphur. These faded away as people switched from coal burning to
> other sources.
> Tons of anecdotal family stories about the same type of things around
> Wilkes-Barre, Pa. early in the century when the mines were all going
> full blast and everyone heated, and cooked with coal, and that was
> almost all pretty clean anthracite.
> Bill C

For a long time there was denial of the causes of air pollution.
Some people really started to recognize the problems with smog
(which is local ground level pollution, while global warming
is due to global CO2, but still evidence of human influence)
after a "killer fog" in Donora, PA in 1948. Donora is a small
town in a river valley like practically every small town
in Western PA. An inversion layer trapped emissions from the
local smelter, more than 20 people died, half the town's
population of 7000 had to be hospitalized. In the early
history of smog, people used to divert blame from industry,
coal, open fires. In the 1940s they started to decide to
do something about it.

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rachel_Carson/crucible.htm
http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Archives/History/chcov.html

In the 70s in Pittsburgh some mornings you'd wake up and
the air would smell like sulfur. The morning weather
forecast listed levels of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and
particulates. And this is _after_ the great cleanups
so the sky was no longer dark at noon. People from LA
can tell you similar stories - about how you never saw
the Ventura Freeway from Sherman Oaks or the mountains from
Pasadena, or how smog alerts kept kids inside their schools
in the 1970s. All this changed because of better
emissions controls. It didn't wreck the economy.
Arguably it helps because people are healthier on
average. It certainly makes bike riding nicer.

Ben
"That's not smog, it's fog"

Date: 14 Feb 2007 04:11:36
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 11:54 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <QhqAh.887$_73....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > > Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
> > > They were ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
> > > combustion engines was in the 1880s.
>
> > By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
> > ought to be REALLY good.
>
> The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to
> acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty,
> burned dirty.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Any history , especially of Victorian London, along with numerous
works of fiction describe the impenetrable "fogs" that reeked of
sulphur. These faded away as people switched from coal burning to
other sources.
Tons of anecdotal family stories about the same type of things around
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. early in the century when the mines were all going
full blast and everyone heated, and cooked with coal, and that was
almost all pretty clean anthracite.
Bill C

Date: 14 Feb 2007 14:26:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171455095.986871.34240@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Any history , especially of Victorian London, along with numerous
> works of fiction describe the impenetrable "fogs" that reeked of
> sulphur. These faded away as people switched from coal burning to
> other sources.
> Tons of anecdotal family stories about the same type of things around
> Wilkes-Barre, Pa. early in the century when the mines were all going
> full blast and everyone heated, and cooked with coal, and that was
> almost all pretty clean anthracite.

I wonder why San Francisco had pea-soup fogs and never burned much coal.
Must have been man-made though because that's the political agenda.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 03:40:57
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Ottavio's Bottecchia (was Re: What - Intelligent Thought?)

On Feb 14, 12:21 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:

>
> You call that old? <crreeaakkk> If it has a lot of
> sentimental value, it's worth keeping, unless you don't
> have the space. However, it's probably not worth _selling_.
> Bikes retain a small fraction of their value except for
> particular rare types or ques, or recent high-end stuff.
>
> A different bike wouldn't make you faster but IMO, the
> question is, if you had a different or newer or older
> bike or upgraded some part of this one, would
> you ride more? If yes, then do what is necessary.
>
> Ben

For another perspective. I really enjoy riding my old stuff, when the
weather is nice, and where it's fairly flat. Don't want to hurt the
bike, and don't have enough wheels built up with different freewheel
blocs anymore, and am not even close to in the kind of shape where
that doesn't matter anymore.
Shit at this point I'm afraid of snapping tubes due to my fat ass.
I love doing our club TT series on my Benotto tri bike with a vintage
set of aerobars. Clean brake levers, cables coming up and tied to the
bars to keep 'em out of the way.
Just looks really cool and still rides great. Time to take the bikes
up to our great local independent bike shop and have 'em rehabbed and
frame savered again. Maybe after the currently pending knee surgery,
again, I'll actually get to ride a lot this year.
Someday, I'm gonna buy a new classic from Richie and keep that
forever too.
Bill C

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:21:41
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Ottavio's Bottecchia (was Re: What - Intelligent Thought?)

On Feb 13, 10:05 pm, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
> road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
> frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
> myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
> Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
> bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
> on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
> It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
> don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
> The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
> built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
> without scratching.

You call that old? <crreeaakkk > If it has a lot of
sentimental value, it's worth keeping, unless you don't
have the space. However, it's probably not worth _selling_.
Bikes retain a small fraction of their value except for
particular rare types or ques, or recent high-end stuff.

A different bike wouldn't make you faster but IMO, the
question is, if you had a different or newer or older
bike or upgraded some part of this one, would
you ride more? If yes, then do what is necessary.

Ben

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:05:47
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 8:32 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <6cr3t2db6pdubvahjbu44olphedl4hg...@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
> > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > >The only difference is that she would
> > >need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly
> > >further.
> > >It's really pretty simple.
>
> > Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
> > $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?
>
> The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think it isn't
> worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a refueling
> stop, in addition to the logistics of security. Again, she isn't the one requesting
> the plane - the Sergeant at Arms and the White House want it this way and the DoD
> are complying.

Wel - the $200,000 figure seems to be for the C-32, and there's still
no evidence of Speaker Pelosi ever asking for a specific aircraft. My
understanding is that the C-37A she was flown in on Thursday and back
to Washington has a far lower operating cost.

> It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make it across
> the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of silly. If
> there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected, then they need
> to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not good: expensive,
> time consuming, etc.

You'll generally notice that there aren't many commercial flights that
go cross-country in a 737. The specified range of a 737-700 is
theoretically enough to fly cross-country, but I don't imagine most
airlines want to take the chance of losing a plane or at the very
least making an unscheduled refueling stop. I do understand that the
newer 737-700ER has a longer range, but most American carriers seem to
want a larger plane for cross-country trips.

Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
without scratching.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 17:54:13
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171429547.049891.20760@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 13, 8:32 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <6cr3t2db6pdubvahjbu44olphedl4hg...@4ax.com>,

> > It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make
> > it across the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of
> > silly. If there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected,
> > then they need to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not
> > good: expensive, time consuming, etc.
>
> You'll generally notice that there aren't many commercial flights that
> go cross-country in a 737. The specified range of a 737-700 is
> theoretically enough to fly cross-country, but I don't imagine most
> airlines want to take the chance of losing a plane or at the very
> least making an unscheduled refueling stop. I do understand that the
> newer 737-700ER has a longer range, but most American carriers seem to
> want a larger plane for cross-country trips.

All of that is true. The flight engineer I know says that you never plan a flight
based around making on a fuel load that is *just* enough. There's always a good
cushion. It's funny that this story still is floating around. But Tom Kunich will
believe it till the day he dies - "Evil Liberal Pelosi demanded a giant plane to fly
200 miles."

> Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
> road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
> frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
> myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
> Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
> bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
> on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
> It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
> don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
> The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
> built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
> without scratching.

I think that's a pretty decent frame. If you wanted to spend a little on a new
group, you'd have an alright bike. Getting a new bike wouldn't, as was mentioned
elsewhere, make you any faster, with the exception that the new bike might inspire
you to ride more. That could make you faster.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 14 Feb 2007 14:21:14
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171429547.049891.20760@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old
> road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel
> frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed
> myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo
> Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset,
> bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added
> on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself.
> It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I
> don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value.
> The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the
> built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove
> without scratching.

Not only worth keeping but almost irreplaceable any more. I suggest you
replace the group with a Centaur 10-speed group and Kyserium wheels and
you'll have a bike as good as anything you can buy today.

Sometime the SL frames in the larger sizes were too flexible for the very
stiff forks that were sometimes used. If you feel speed wobbles occurring
you can replace the fork with a carbon fiber fork and because they're
considerably more flexible than the steel forks all of the speed wobbles
will disappear. And strangely enough, it doesn't seem to effect the steering
at all.

My (SL) Colnago Super is lighter than all the rest of my bikes except for
the everything-carbon C40 I have. Hell, it's a half pound lighter than my
Look. And now that I replaced the fork it rides nearly perfect. I left
everything as a 7-speed because I have a lot of top end parts for 7-speeds.
I had to have a bike to mount my Tri-Spokes on. And my disk. And the great
set of Araya Super Aero wheels with Mavic hubs. It doesn't shift as cleanly
as a new bike because I've got this mix of parts but I can live with that.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 16:37:55
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 7:13 pm, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:YOURhoward-4DB6BF.23204712022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > > I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
> > > she would
> > > take commercial flights.
>
> > Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
> > was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
> > (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
> > strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
> > military roles.
>
> The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican
> representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned)
> as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most
> opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she
> could fly a large entourage.
>
> > And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
> > fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
> > wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.
>
> Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time
> to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift
> Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more
> pressing matters.
>
> What do you think it really more likely?
>
> 1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they
> wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those
> big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new
> Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and
> asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in".
> They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are
> outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we
> give you and like it".
>
> --or--
>
> 2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the
> 89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home
> in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it
> to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes.
> She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home
> and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what
> can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the
> negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter
> stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather
> conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it
> by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to
> "non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies
> for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks
> them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold
> of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it
> out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed
> after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky".
>
> -- --
>
> Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was
> assigned last Thursday.

That this is still ongoing is ridiculous. I like Pelosi about as much
as I like syphilis, and view them similarly. I was pissed at the first
reports,which were WAY out of line with what was really going on, as
the following detailed reporting made clear.
To try and make this into something is ridiculous. It's the "Boy who
cried wolf". When she DOES, do hideous shit, and she will, noone is
going to notice because of all the noise that's already been made over
nothing.
People are all wound up over this but the former #3 at the CIA has
been idicted on contracting charges and that's not even on TK's radar
screen. Maybe because there is NO corruption as he has told us OVER
AND OVER AND OVER, it's all a plot.

>From a source Tom likes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251760,00.html

SAN DIEGO - The CIA's former No. 3 official and a defense contractor
were charged Tuesday with fraud and other offenses in the corruption
investigation that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham to prison,
The Associated Press has learned.

>From the Wa. Post.
Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade
Ann Scott Tyson, A01 (Post) 02/12/2007 Article ...Meanwhile, the
unexpected deployment of five additional Army brigades into Baghdad
has created an urgent need for 2,000 Humvees with the new armor.Shiite
forces in recent months have stepped up their targeting of U.S.
soldiers in Baghdad with sophisticated EFPs, described...

More well thought out planning from our current leadership.
Bill C

Date: 13 Feb 2007 16:13:06
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-4DB6BF.23204712022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that
> > she would
> > take commercial flights.
>
> Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757
> was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS
> (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But
> strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the
> military roles.

The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican
representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned)
as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most
opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she
could fly a large entourage.

> And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to
> fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she
> wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles.

Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time
to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift
Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more
pressing matters.

What do you think it really more likely?

1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they
wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those
big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new
Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and
asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in".
They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are
outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we
give you and like it".

--or--

2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the
89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home
in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it
to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes.
She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home
and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what
can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the
negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter
stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather
conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it
by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to
"non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies
for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks
them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold
of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it
out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed
after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky".

-- --

Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was
assigned last Thursday.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 10:45:46
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 8:57 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >The only difference is that she would
> >need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
> >It's really pretty simple.
>
> Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
> $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

I can't believe that people are still making this claim **five** days
after she's already been flown home in an Air Force C-37A (Gulfstream
V). It's a 12-seat plane that Speaker Hastert had traveled home in on
several occasions. It's ginally larger than the C-20B (Gulfstream
III) that Speaker Hastert was typically transported in. I've
certainly heard from enough people that the C-20B flies at a lower
altitude, has smaller tanks, and will not meet its published range
flying into a winter headwind. It's an older plane that's supposedly
really loud compared to newer executive jets like the C-37A, and
likely not as fuel efficient given its size. Tack on landing delays
due to fog in San Francisco and their unique closely paired parallel
runways and that 4250 mile published range (of the C-20B) may not be
enough. In fact, I hear that the cost in resources (VIP security
measures at the refueling site, additional takeoff/landing wear on the
aircraft, and additional fuel usage) probably makes a non-stop flight
in a C-37A cheaper than a C-20B with a refueling stop.

When the DoD said that a "larger" plane capable of making non-stop
flights to San Francisco might not always be available, they were
likely referring to the C-37A. People with an agenda against the
current Speaker imagined they were referring to the C-32/757 or the
C-40/737.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=182301
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/10/BAGEVO2E271.DTL

<quote >

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the subject of Republican criticism for
her mode of air travel, flew home nonstop Thursday night aboard a 12-
seat military aircraft set aside for use by lawmakers.

<clip >

Pelosi flew nonstop from the nation's capital to San Francisco to
attend the funeral services of the late Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy aboard a
C-37A, the military's version of a Gulfstream V that can travel 6,300
miles. It is one of the planes used regularly by Hastert, Pelosi's
office and the Pentagon said.

<unquote >

Date: 13 Feb 2007 10:40:26
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 4:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
(just to keep the context in mind):
> > On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> >> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> >> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in
> >> Redwoods
> >> would remain unchanged.

There are still Redwoods, after Reagan/Watt?

Watt was it Watt avoided jail time for, again, as a part of the most
corrupt (indictments, etc.) administration up to that time?

How many of those in Redwoods homes actually have "conservative"
owners, do you think? Since "conservatives" are the only productive
people on the planet, one would expect the cost of these dwellings
would be overwhelmingly affordable only to the financially successful.
Just a guess.

(someone posted, excuse my being lost in the forest):
> > it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
> > end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
> > invented by you.

> Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in
> the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under
> cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more
> expensive and because the farmed areas are ginal they become far more
> sensitive to climatic variations.

That actually sounds rational, on the surface. However, "provides"
covers a vast complexity. As usualy, "it's all political", starting,
perhaps with "what we 'provide' and why".

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/September04/Features/usfoodaid.htm

Just a quick read from the above:

The amount and types of "surplus" food in the USA has changed in
recent times. There have been drops in our "supply"; I didn't see
mention in the conservative-owned/controlled media of any Somali heavy
bombers attacking the in Redwoods.

Food is "provided" from government to government, at least the huge
grain "surpluses" that are the ordinary understanding IRT this
subject. Political ends are served, and distribution systems can be
very poor, even with best intentions. IOW, even of what amounts might
be "donated, free", an equal amount is not "received, free" by
individuals.

"Provided" food is often not just given away, including delivery (as
our generation was led to believe in 4th grade "Uncle Sam"
propaganda), but sold in national/local kets. This can be
disruptive in terms of effect on local production, and can cause
complications when "surplus" is used to feed animals intended for
human consumption.

Not to mention, if your figure of 60% is accurate (some recent years,
USA percentage was 50%), if US food surplus stopped, there would still
be about half of the "surplus", "provided" food in the pipeline, for
better or worse.

> If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food
> production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire
> areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus
> food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans
> could feel like they're saving the world.

As above, the "without food" is wrong.

> Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into
> your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off
> the food supply to massive areas of the world?

Lots of people in the world, including many in the USA, have deficient
diets, with no apparent ill effect on the homes in the in Redwoods.

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
> At the same time, we need to reform and
> modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks --
> and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

That's bass-ackwards. Fuel economy and emissions controls for light
trucks need to catch up to those for cars. Well, there's your poor
management, including driving kets with advertising (domestic
makers of SUV's, light trucks), and lobbying dollars (domestic makers
pushing for easy requirements for the vehicles they're making money
on) at work.

> The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy.
> We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and
> then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot.

Nuclear energy is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. Or,
maybe we could bury the waste in your back yard? If it's OK with the
neighbors, of course.

> But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to
> replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world
> war. And it won't be a nice small clean war.

Baloney.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fatus/monthlysumy.htm

We import nearly as much food as we export, with the trend being to
import more of the percentage.

The old "America Feeds the World" slogan seems not to be true. Well,
imagine that.

I wonder why "water" hasn't been mentioned as a power source. --D-y

Date: 13 Feb 2007 10:16:04
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 13, 6:07 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> Storage of power is plugging the phone and tablet PC to the wall
> at night. Do either of these count?

Sure they do. Nothing wrong with it. But... You just screwed your
energy efficiency since you had to charge a battery. The battery is a
nasty sort of waste too, if you care about that sort of thing.

That 2nd law is a muthafucka. So let's wish it away.

http://www.powerstream.com/NiMH.htm
"The coulometric charging efficiency of nickel metal hydride batteries
is typically 66%, meaning that you must put 150 amp hours into the
battery for every 100 amp hours you get out. The faster you charge the
worse this gets."

http://www.powerstream.com/SLA.htm
The coulometric charging efficiency of flooded lead acid batteries is
typically 70%, meaning that you must put 142 amp hours into the
battery for every 100 amp hours you get out. This varies somewhat
depending on the temperature, speed of charge, and battery type.

I think I remember NiCad as about the same. Imagine that, no free
lunch. Who da thunk?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:21:23
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> I think I remember NiCad as about the same. Imagine that, no free
> lunch. Who da thunk?

Just so long as the beer is free.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 00:52:26
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 11:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <C1F535F5.204DF5...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >> And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> >> windbags.
>
> > The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
> > plane that
> > will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
> > House says so
> > too. What's the deal?
>
> The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC?

Dude,

If you'd ever tried to drive through Tysons Corner,
you'd know that is a perfectly reasonable request.

Ben

Date: 13 Feb 2007 00:41:20
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 10:24 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:

> > concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
> > (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
> > the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
> > reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
> > plants.
>
> Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
> 100K investment right?????

Dumbass -

I already stated that massive investment in wind farms would need
federal price supports because the energy ket is subject to OPEC
manipulation. If they see too many alternative sources coming on line,
they raise production until the price goes down far enough to kill the
alternative projects (like the Exxon Colony project I referenced
earlier). Then they cut their production again after the alternative
projects are dead.

Nice to see that you are pro-OPEC.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 00:38:30
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 9:51 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 2/11/07 10:02 PM, in article
> 1171260151.211341.18...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
> >> 1171258374.165871.194...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>
> >> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
> >>>> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
> >>>> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
> >>>> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
> >>>> anyway is a bunch of crap......
>
> >>> Dumbass -
>
> >>> Ripping our economy to shreds?
>
> >>> Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> >>> windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>
> >>> Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
> >>> 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
> >>> and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
> >>> barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
> >>> $5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
> >>> of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
> >>> investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
> >>> they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
> >>> is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
> >>> price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
> >>> happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
> >>> subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.
>
> >>> In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
> >>> power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
> >>> to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
> >>> such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
> >>> we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
> >>> when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
> >>> the entire continent of Africa.
>
> >>> Nice job of patriotism, you fucking moron.
>
> >>> thanks,
>
> >>> K. Gringioni.
>
> >> You do not know what I want you piece of shit.......
> >> You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
> >> Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge
>
> > Moron -
>
> > You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".
>
> > I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
> > Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
> > giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
> > exchange for their oil.
>
> > Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> BULLSHIT assbag! You show me where I EVER said that! I SAID making drastic
> changes to just OUR economy would be devastating.....

Dumbass -

How would spending money on local energy sources be devastating
compared to sending it to OPEC nations? Seems like to me that it would
be good for our economy - hiring American companies to manufacture
windfarms and the like.

Sorry to see that you are pro-OPEC, perhaps not in word, but in deed.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:17:59
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

Shithead -

It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than you.

From:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are
aimed
at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.

Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind
turbines
don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or
greenhouse
gasses.

Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.

Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
and the earth's surface irregularities.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
particular project.

Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners
make
rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a
cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may
or
may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires
a
higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
demands.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from
cities
where the electricity is needed.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land
and
those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
generation.

Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is
some
concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:24:40
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 8:17 PM, in article
1171340279.755715.323770@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>
>
>
> Shithead -
>
> It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than you.
>
> From:
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html
>
>
> Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
> Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
> fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are
> aimed
> at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.
>
>
> Advantages
> Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
> energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
> combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind
> turbines
> don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or
> greenhouse
> gasses.
>
>
> Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
> States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.
>
>
> Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
> used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
> the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
> and the earth's surface irregularities.
>
>
> Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
> available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
> depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
> particular project.
>
>
> Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
> economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
> Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
> turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners
> make
> rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.
>
>
> Disadvantages
> Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a
> cost
> basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may
> or
> may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
> decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires
> a
> higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.
>
>
> The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
> wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
> needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
> not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
> demands.
>
>
> Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from
> cities
> where the electricity is needed.
>
>
> Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land
> and
> those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
> generation.
>
>
> Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
> environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is
> some
> concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
> (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
> the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
> reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
> plants.
>
>
>

Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
100K investment right?????

Date: 12 Feb 2007 17:39:06
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:46 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com >
wrote:

> From:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

> Disadvantages
> Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost
> basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or
> may not be cost competitive.

You should make the argument that fossil fuels are incorrectly priced
because of external costs. That is one of the favorite buzz-words for
intervention.

And also:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html
That is a lot of purple and blue in the east. ouch. That essentially
means high transmission costs, something doubtfully considered when
putting one's best foot forward, as below (I propose a new convention
in rbr-speak: best foot forward == doctoring the data filter).

Notice how completely vague is "have the potential to supply more than
one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United
States." I'll bet it is, except when you start considering
constraints C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4....C_N, lim N- >inf. I'll put money on
it that it is some theoretical calculation that won't come close to
being acheived in practice, no matter how much money you throw at it.

I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
to grow. Wants are never satisfied.

Even though the site you linked is one big sales pitch, I wish you'd
read it a little more closely. There are a lot of very hard problems
to solve. The batteries, when used, aren't "clean, no pollution."
The storage problem alone is major. It isn't magic. If people want
to cut carbon, but not cause major dislocations, I think they'll have
to go nuke-u-lar. France has gone nuke-u-lar, and we luv France,
don't we?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_tech_accept.html
"The Technology Acceptance activity works to provide information about
wind energy technology and its potential benefits to the stakeholder
community, to allow informed decision-making, and to reduce undue
barriers to wind energy's use."

Lingo like "stakeholder community" should be setting off the bullshit
bingo lights in your head.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 04:01:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1171330746.481061.195940@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
> it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
> of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
> to grow. Wants are never satisfied.

The Altamont Pass in the San Francisco bay area is one of the most perfect
spots in the USA for windpower. This was the first place to install wind
turbines in large quantities. And yet the turbines operate less than 25% of
the time, cost so much to maintain that as soon as the generators become
obsolete (meaning no more parts made for them) they are abandoned.

Right now perhaps 5% of the wind turbines there are inoperable under any
conditions and another 5% of them have been completely abandoned. Since it
isn't economically feasible to tear them down, these eyesores polute the
countryside.

When they are running the noise from the generators disturbs people in the
town of Tracy some 20 miles downwind.

Windpower Inc has been sagging along for two decades or more and never made
enough money to even wink at. They could never have been founded if there
hadn't been huge federal tax subsidies that allowed people tax write-offs
many times their investments. As soon as those subsidies disappeared all of
the companies except Windpower went out of business and sold off their stuff
to Windpower who just barely can keep their heads above water by employing
only a couple of personnel.

Let me reinterate on this since the clown here don't really read that well -
it costs more to build the towers, build the generators, build the props,
the control circuits, the distributions and put them all together and
maintain it then they can profitably make in the lifetime of the wind
turbine. What's more, in higher winds these wind turbines must be locked
down because if they spin up too fast (such as with failed control
mechanisms) they explode into pieces and the flying pieces can take down
several other wind turbines or worse, start a domino effect.

I initially became interested in windpower in the 70's and followed it
pretty closely since my uncle had a couple of patents pertinent to windpower
at the time. After careful study of the problems and costs involved it
became clear that while better than no power at all - that's why cattle
wells used to be pumped by windmills - wind power is far too spotty to use.

As for batteries - Ford and GM both ran battery development programs for
over a decade trying to make practical batteries for automobiles. For looked
into liquid sulfer batteries and GM worked on lithium cells. They really
TRIED to find the last word in batteries and in fact they did. The problem
is that the last word is that batteries will never be a practical way of
storing power except in special circumstances such as an automobile where
they aren't discharged much and the fact that they have a limited practical
lifetime isn't objectionable since they're cheap.That is definitely not the
case for power storage systems.

What they're referring to as "batteries" these days are fuel cells, often
hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with these cells is that they are expensive
to build, have a fairly limited lifetime and require several energy
conversions to use. These conversions are the real problem since they make
the power storage inefficient compared to other means.

So fuel cells will only be used in special circumstances as well since they
use more power than they can store.

Now all of these systems can be used to some extent under special
circumstances that make them practical in limited applications. But they
will not REPLACE oil, coal, or other carbon based power. And that's what it
will take to become "energy independent".

Date: 12 Feb 2007 16:26:23
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:32 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

Whichever is less.

> Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
> 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
> and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
> barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
> $5 billion in 1980 dollars.

I think you're saying "our" energy supply is not "insecure," since
they'll always undercut on price. And here the guvmint said it is
insecure. Those fuckers -- they can never tell the truth. LOL

Date: 12 Feb 2007 15:29:11
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 2:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:

> but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
> money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
> they can still be wrong).

I don't know about Canada, but the US is increasingly becoming a weird
Commie-Fascist hybrid poli-system. Which is to say, the guvmint makes
sure that the people who believe in something are encouraged not to
put up their own money, but instead, someone else's.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 15:23:29
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:38 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:

> I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
> cost billions of lives. Where did you get that?

For whatever you say Tom's problems are here, your's are far worse.
Billions? Who knows? But don't do your typical "I can't see the
forest through the trees; Ben Franklin didn't say that" because of
your distaste for Tom.

If I were to play you in chess, I would beat you every time. That is
because you only see the state of the board at present, while I make a
point of looking ahead many moves.

For example, your solution to poverty is to "give" someone else's
money/assets to the impoverished. It never occurs to you to ask: "And
then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

> Your
> carbon load now scales more or less with your standard of
> living and the vast majority of people in the world have
> a fairly low standard of living, but they aren't about
> to drop dead from their low carbon emissions.

Indeed. They'd more likely drop dead from industrialized nation's
reduction in carbon emissions, since they'll probably go from sweat
shop poor to dead poor. But heck, that'll only confuse you.

> The problem is reconciling an attempt
> to keep CO2 down with everybody's perfectly
> understandable desire for an improved standard
> of living.

No shit, that's the essence of the point. Even a blind pig can root
up a turnip occasionally.

Do something you've never done before. Go past square one.

Ask, "If 'we' reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption,
what happens?"

"And then what? And then what? And then what? ..."

Can you do it? I always want to believe you can.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 14:32:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org >
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> >perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.
>
> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
don't know shit and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
commie plotters.
Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
with no understanding of engineering would go there.
Bill C

Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:01:10
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 12 Feb 2007 14:32:59 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
>don't know shit and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
>purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
>commie plotters.
> Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
>anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
>with no understanding of engineering would go there.
> Bill C

I knew that. Just checking to see if you did. Since I invented the
stock ket, I knew it all along.

For me, life has been a bear. Mr. Bull should be along any moment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:44:31
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171319579.286927.67170@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> >perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>>
>> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
>> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
>> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
>> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
>> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
>> in the near future - without subsidies.
>>
>> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
>> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
> Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
> don't know shit and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
> purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
> commie plotters.
> Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
> anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
> with no understanding of engineering would go there.
> Bill C
>

You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a fine
power source.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:14:44
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.com > wrote in
news:a-adnWW4Coau30zYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com:

>
> You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
> fine power source.
>

Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 13 Feb 2007 19:21:59
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

William Asher wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.com> wrote in
> news:a-adnWW4Coau30zYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
>> fine power source.
>>
>
> Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.
>

Not healthy. I was a member of the engineering team that first studied
the feasibility of breaking wind. We determined that the net energy loss
involved would accelerate the universe's progress towards entropy. And
stuff.

Now that you mention it in this context, it would also accelerate the
creation of greenhouse gases.

I don't really weigh 300 lbs, I've just been refraining from passing gas
in the interest of humanity. Just say "NO!" to getting your finger pulled!

Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:51:01
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
>> fine power source.

William Asher wrote:
> Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.

Refried beans - the ultimate energy source.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 14:18:52
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 4:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote in messagenews:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> >>perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>
> > I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> > wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> > being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> > economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> > in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> > in the near future - without subsidies.
>
> Then by all means why don't you invest in them.
>
> > Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> > new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
> Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
> explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
> the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
> they return?
>
> I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
> the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
> subsidies".

dumbass,

you could've made the same claim about the canadian oil industry. it
crept along for years on massive govt. subsidies ...until the time was
right. now it's booming. of course it pollutes like a motherfucker.

in ontario it's relatively easy for a schmoe to get into the wind
energy game. if you can get the permit to build one you can run your
meter backwards :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energyfaqs.html

and perhaps even sell energy :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energystandard.html

but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
they can still be wrong).

lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
i'd put my money.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:13:57
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 2:18 PM, in article
1171318732.507708.11850@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 12, 4:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote in
>> messagenews:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>>>> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>>
>>> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
>>> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
>>> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
>>> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
>>> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
>>> in the near future - without subsidies.
>>
>> Then by all means why don't you invest in them.
>>
>>> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
>>> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>>
>> Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
>> explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
>> the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
>> they return?
>>
>> I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
>> the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
>> subsidies".
>
> dumbass,
>
> you could've made the same claim about the canadian oil industry. it
> crept along for years on massive govt. subsidies ...until the time was
> right. now it's booming. of course it pollutes like a motherfucker.
>
> in ontario it's relatively easy for a schmoe to get into the wind
> energy game. if you can get the permit to build one you can run your
> meter backwards :
>
> http://greenbreeze.ca/energyfaqs.html
>
> and perhaps even sell energy :
>
> http://greenbreeze.ca/energystandard.html
>
> but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
> money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
> they can still be wrong).
>
> lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
> have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
> i'd put my money.
>
>
>
>

Dork!
That is just a sales pitch! you know...... Like the guy selling tapes to get
rich! If it was that great now WHY don't they do it themselves instead of
selling the startup to someone else?

Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:33:20
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171318732.507708.11850@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
> money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
> they can still be wrong).

Mutual funds mostly mid cap.

> lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
> have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
> i'd put my money.

It really doesn't pay to put your money into individual stocks unless you're
rich and can take the ups and downs of the ket. Most ket "experts" are
people who got in at the right time in the right ket and think that they
got rich because they were st instead of lucky.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 15:48:28
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
> causing

Caught your limit on that one, Tom.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:26:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net > wrote in message
news:g%%zh.63335$Oa.38502@edtnps82...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
>> causing
>
> Caught your limit on that one, Tom.

But I have an unlimited license.....

Date: 12 Feb 2007 09:59:53
From: Vidmar
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Dude, I expect it won't be long before we read about your exploits with an
attack rifle from a bell tower somewhere. Seriously, you are in need of
major psychiatric assistance. Hopefully, one of your friends or loved ones
will help you get the help that you need.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
> causing it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold
> down CO2 emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives
> just doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all
> we have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm
>
> "The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
> say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
> fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future
> for humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."
>
> ""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
> millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
> climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
> adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both
> on reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
> variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
> emissions and impacts."
>
> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in
> Redwoods would remain unchanged.
>
>
>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:56:13
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> it and that therefore man is evil.

No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
of this.

-paul

Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:03:47
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 6:56 AM, in article dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com,
"Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
>> it and that therefore man is evil.
>
> No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> of this.
>
> -paul

Oh really?!?!?!?!
Where is this mentioned in the hysteria? At what percentage is the man-made
contribution compared to the cyclic climate changes going on now?

Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:53:42
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:17:18
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:53:42 -0800, "Fred Fredburger"
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.com > wrote:

>It is, however, unshakable Christian doctrine that man is sinful.
>
>Fucking bunch of Liberals.

Ahh, now we get to the root of the jealousy and anger. Even after poll
after poll shows conservatives are getting more than us liberals, they
think we are having all the fun.

Ok, maybe that works out. Liberals can enjoy it all the time while
conservatives can only enjoy it when it is for the express purpose of
having babies. Otherwise, its sinful. And not to be enjoyed.

And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Feb 2007 18:14:06
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

<snip >
> And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Wait until you date a candiru.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 13 Feb 2007 14:01:06
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 13 Feb 2007 18:14:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
><snip>
>> And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.
>
>Wait until you date a candiru.

I'll pass. Or maybe not, depending on whether you believe the stories.

And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
have no plans to visit the Amazon.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Feb 2007 19:26:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On 13 Feb 2007 18:14:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.
>>
>>Wait until you date a candiru.
>
> I'll pass. Or maybe not, depending on whether you believe the stories.
>
> And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
> have no plans to visit the Amazon.

Ok, picture the scene, you're trophy alewive tells you no more nookie until
you take her on that romatic honeymoon you promised. She wants to see the
Amazon. You don't really want to see the Amazon, but don't really feel
like getting yet another divorce for at least six months so what the hell,
you go to the Amazon. Once you're there, the alewive, as alewives do,
wants to go skinny dipping, claiming it will be romantic. You will be able
to tell her that skinny dipping, well, any kind of dipping, in the Amazon
is not really a good idea because of the candiru. She may look a little
green in the gills when you tell her about the candiru, but it's in both of
your best interest. After she's recovered, the both of you can use the hot
tub, after which your alewive will probably be really good with a little
butter, lemon, parsley, some rice pilaf, and a cold bottle of the local
brew.

Easy come, easy go. Plenty of fish in the sea. etc. etc.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:23:14
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
> have no plans to visit the Amazon.

If you wait long enough there will be a rain forest in Greenland.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 19:27:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Donald Munro wrote:

> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>> And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
>> have no plans to visit the Amazon.
>
> If you wait long enough there will be a rain forest in Greenland.
>

There would be except it will be underwater. Didn't you see Waterworld?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:25:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net > wrote in message
news:dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
>> causing it and that therefore man is evil.
>
> No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> of this.

Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
into the situation. It seemed to peak about 1940 and started back down at
the point when man's increasing use of energy was at it's highest growth. By
1970 the hysterics were claiming Global Cooling would kill the majority of
mankind.

I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
that.

Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
area - leftist political propaganda.

Shortly after the greenies were screaming about the coming ice age the
temperature started back up again. And lo and behold but now WE'RE the cause
of the heating.

There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere: The earth
isn't something that is easily effected by man. While I'm certain that we're
having some effects, most of them are highly localized and the sum of them
is buried in the noise of natural climatic variation.

While man probably is having the sum zero effect on climate change he most
certainly could have a serious effect if he starts fiddling with the
climate. One suggestion is that we build a more efficient carbon fixing
plankton and release it into the oceans. While the amount of carbon in the
atmosphere CAN'T rise too much (it will level off around 400 ppm) cutting
too much CO2 out of the atmosphere COULD be done and would have some very
serious consequences.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 23:29:49
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <iP5Ah.411$_73.269@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote in message
> news:dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
> >> causing it and that therefore man is evil.
> >
> > No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> > accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> > of this.
>
> Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
> into the situation.

Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were
ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion
engines was in the 1880s.

> I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
> going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
> that.
>
> Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
> enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
> area - leftist political propaganda.

There were a bunch of articles in many publications that seemed to indicate that
we would be using fling cars by now. They were wrong. So were those articles. Does
it seem reasonable to cherry pick those to suit your agenda and not mention the ones
that talked about the flying cars?

> There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere: The earth
> isn't something that is easily effected by man.

Here your brush it aside, but earlier you were catastrophizing about the loss of
billions of lives. Hmm.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:43:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
> They were
> ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
> combustion
> engines was in the 1880s.

By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
ought to be REALLY good.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 20:54:08
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <QhqAh.887$_73.487@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
> > They were ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal
> > combustion engines was in the 1880s.
>
> By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
> ought to be REALLY good.

The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to
acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty,
burned dirty.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 14 Feb 2007 14:22:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-8EFA09.20540813022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <QhqAh.887$_73.487@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >
>> > Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
>> > They were ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use
>> > of internal
>> > combustion engines was in the 1880s.
>>
>> By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
>> ought to be REALLY good.
>
> The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you
> want to
> acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined
> dirty,
> burned dirty.

Funny that you don't have any statistics though isn't it. All mouth as
usual.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 17:35:07
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <_WEAh.2053$tD2.1658@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-8EFA09.20540813022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <QhqAh.887$_73.487@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >
> >> > Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
> >> > They were ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use
> >> > of internal
> >> > combustion engines was in the 1880s.
> >>
> >> By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
> >> ought to be REALLY good.
> >
> > The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you
> > want to acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined
> > dirty, burned dirty.
>
> Funny that you don't have any statistics though isn't it. All mouth as
> usual.

You stated that "the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any
input into the situation." My point was that the IR started between 100 and 120
years prior to that. If you know anything about the Industrial Revolution(s), you
would know that coal power made it possible.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 15 Feb 2007 06:25:38
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/14/07 5:35 PM, in article
YOURhoward-5ACDF9.17350714022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <_WEAh.2053$tD2.1658@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-8EFA09.20540813022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>> In article <QhqAh.887$_73.487@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:YOURhoward-9F446C.23294912022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)?
>>>>> They were ked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use
>>>>> of internal
>>>>> combustion engines was in the 1880s.
>>>>
>>>> By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This
>>>> ought to be REALLY good.
>>>
>>> The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you
>>> want to acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal.
>>> Mined
>>> dirty, burned dirty.
>>
>> Funny that you don't have any statistics though isn't it. All mouth as
>> usual.
>
> You stated that "the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any
> input into the situation." My point was that the IR started between 100 and
> 120
> years prior to that. If you know anything about the Industrial Revolution(s),
> you
> would know that coal power made it possible.

I think you AssBags are causing global warming by breathing out to much
CO2......

Date: 15 Feb 2007 02:48:31
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-5ACDF9.17350714022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <_WEAh.2053$tD2.1658@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Funny that you don't have any statistics though isn't it. All mouth as
>> usual.
>
> You stated that "the earth started warming about 1880 long before man
> had any
> input into the situation." My point was that the IR started between 100
> and 120
> years prior to that. If you know anything about the Industrial
> Revolution(s), you
> would know that coal power made it possible.

I notice that you still haven't shown any statistics demonstrating that coal
power before 1920 was sufficiently large to have any effect on anything. But
that's OK, I can see that you're too stupid to even understand the
implication.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 06:34:42
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria (snip)

Hysteria??? Hysteria???

Here's *your* hysteria right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

--D-y

Date: 12 Feb 2007 04:26:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 2:14 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> > it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
> > emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
> > doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
> > have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm
>
> > "The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
> > say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
> > fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
> > humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."
>
> > ""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
> > millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
> > climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
> > adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
> > reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
> > variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
> > emissions and impacts."
>
> > Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> > 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in Redwoods
> > would remain unchanged.
>
> dumbass,
>
> this article says what i thought should be paramount, the need to
> adapt whatever the situation is (instead of stalling the debate), but
> you dismissed it saying so what ? the climate changes just like the
> sun rises.
>
> it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
> end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
> invented by you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Haven't you heard that the sun still orbits the earth and that
Copernicus guy was a heretic created by the devil to make us question
our faith.
You have to BELIEVE!
Bill C

Date: 11 Feb 2007 23:14:25
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
> emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
> doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
> have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm
>
> "The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
> say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
> fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
> humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."
>
> ""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
> millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
> climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
> adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
> reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
> variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
> emissions and impacts."
>
> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in Redwoods
> would remain unchanged.

dumbass,

this article says what i thought should be paramount, the need to
adapt whatever the situation is (instead of stalling the debate), but
you dismissed it saying so what ? the climate changes just like the
sun rises.

it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
invented by you.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:07:35
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171264464.974558.107100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
>> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in
>> Redwoods
>> would remain unchanged.
>
> it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
> end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
> invented by you.

Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in
the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under
cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more
expensive and because the farmed areas are ginal they become far more
sensitive to climatic variations.

In another location I did the math that showed that we presently grown about
16% of the corn and soybeans that would be required to TOTALLY replace oil
use in this country. And at the present rates of energy use growth it would
be a much smaller percentage before we could even switch production over.

If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food
production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire
areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus
food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans
could feel like they're saving the world.

Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into
your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off
the food supply to massive areas of the world?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html

"To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by
setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of
renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the
current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and
modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks --
and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

Here's a little analysis of that - the US presently uses approximately 9
million barrels of oil PER DAY. The cracking process is pretty efficient but
let's say that a 44 gallon barrel of oil will only make 30 gallons of
gasoline. That means that each day the US uses about 270 million gallons of
gasoline a day. Let's round that off to 300 million since we're really
conservative with the efficiency of conversion.

This means that we're using 110 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Also
we're using some billion tons of coal every single year.

You see that number up there? The 35 billion gallons? That's pure bullshit
since that would be some one third of present day gasoline usage and as I
pointed out we don't grow that much corn. Of course they're talking about
using "sawgrass" since it grows more efficiently. Well, that's the present
story. Because, you see, it doesn't grow more efficiently. Grass is water
and energy intensive. While it grows very rapidly when conditions are good,
it strips most of the energy out of the ground and continuous plantings of
it would soon deplete the soil making the land it is growing on pretty
worthless.

But exactly how difficult is THAT to figure out? Where would the energy in
the grass come from? The carbohydrates would require a lot of fertilizers
and water since grass has a lot of surface area to plant mass.

What's more, we already know that presently there IS NO bacteria capable of
converting grass to ethanol with anything like efficiency. The word is that
they would have to completely redesign the bacteria for these purposes from
the ground up. And we have absolutely no idea how to do such a thing. So
we're looking at least a ten year project just to design the bacteria that
will convert sawgrass to ethanol and then any farmer would tell you that the
ginal areas they're talking about for growing sawgrass would soon be
depleted and untenable.

Photovoltaics never return their production costs in energy generation.

The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy.
We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and
then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot.

But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to
replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world
war. And it won't be a nice small clean war.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 09:14:17
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 11 Feb 2007 23:14:25 -0800, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:

>it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
>end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
>invented by you.

If TK had ever shown the inclination towards hyperbole, I could k
it down to that. But every time I made that assumption in the past, he
ended up being dead serious (and defending the hyperbole for days if
not weeks, maybe years). I guess that he expects to hear sometime in
the future a broadcast along the lines of, "Today the loss in lives
due to CO2 emissions reduction passed the 900 million k, but the
U.N and its U.S. liberal lackeys have vowed to hold the course..."

I think a Chung chart showing worst case intersection between "lost
lives" and and resulting reduced CO2 emissions from just the reduction
in population alone would be useful. With luck, we can go back to our
former ways when only 400 or 500 million are dead. We liberals are an
optimistic lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Practicing liberal asshole...

Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:09:58
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in
> Redwoods would remain unchanged.

Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to
do with bicycle racing? I could see an interesting thread if someone was
trying to talk about the ethical implications of taking money from various
sponsors (the French are certainly having a go at this with gambling at the
moment), but nothing like that in your post. And it's not like you're going
to change anyone's mind in rbr anyway; the last time that happened there
were still DoDo birds roaming Australia.

So why post this sort of thing here?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Date: 12 Feb 2007 21:33:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:apUzh.6935$gj4.6370@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
>> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in
>> Redwoods would remain unchanged.
>
> Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to
> do with bicycle racing?

The same sort of collateral damage is occurring in bike racing - wild
imaginations making drugs more important than anything else. Let's face it
Mike, when the whack jobs are in control of everything, the whole world is
whacky.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 21:57:33
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip >

Tom:

I just read in Nature the full 4th report is out, Nature lists 600 authors,
representatives from 113 governments, and 620 expert reviewers. So the
1500 number wasn't all that far off. Also, it didn't take them all that
long to reconcile the executive sumy with the full report.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070129/full/070129-15.html

Interestingly, that link will redirect to:
http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEarthPlans/GreenhousGasRegulation/USAMustB
eDestroyed.html

you will also want to read

http://www.evilaliens.org/ConquerEarthPlans/GreenhousGasRegulation/UseHuman
sAsFood.html

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:46:46
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> > Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> > windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>
> In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind generator.
> Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient as
> the most modern one's today.

<snip >

Dude, you're an idiot. 1930's tech=2000 tech?

Jesus.

That's like saying the propellor of a 1930s plane moves air as
efficiently as a modern jet turbine (the same fluid dynamics advances
apply to both turbines that move air and turbines that are moved by
air).

The snippet below is from a US federal government site. The same
government that is governed by Bush and Cheney, not exactly two
environmentalist extremists when it comes to energy. And yes, I will
believe the Department of Energy on this before I believe a blowhard
like you.

From:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are aimed
at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.

Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines
don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse
gasses.

Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.

Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
and the earth's surface irregularities.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
particular project.

Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make
rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or
may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a
higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
demands.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities
where the electricity is needed.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and
those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
generation.

Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is some
concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171262806.744854.301240@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
>> > windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>>
>> In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind
>> generator.
>> Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient
>> as
>> the most modern one's today.
>
> Dude, you're an idiot. 1930's tech=2000 tech?

No, I'm an engineer - what was it you said you do for a living again? Oh,
that's right - you're an inheritance baby.

> That's like saying the propellor of a 1930s plane moves air as
> efficiently as a modern jet turbine (the same fluid dynamics advances
> apply to both turbines that move air and turbines that are moved by
> air).

You really don't have a clue do you? Maybe you'd like to explain why most
of the early aerodynamic sections in the design book were put there by the
Wright brothers? Wait, - obviously because they were stupid and today's air
is a lot different from that of 1905.

Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 21:20:03
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <Hl0Ah.1307$Jl.458@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171262806.744854.301240@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> >> > windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
> >>
> >> In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind
> >> generator. Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as
> >> efficient as the most modern one's today.
> >
> > Dude, you're an idiot. 1930's tech=2000 tech?
>
> No, I'm an engineer - what was it you said you do for a living again? Oh,
> that's right - you're an inheritance baby.
>
> > That's like saying the propellor of a 1930s plane moves air as
> > efficiently as a modern jet turbine (the same fluid dynamics advances
> > apply to both turbines that move air and turbines that are moved by
> > air).
>
> You really don't have a clue do you? Maybe you'd like to explain why most
> of the early aerodynamic sections in the design book were put there by the
> Wright brothers? Wait, - obviously because they were stupid and today's air
> is a lot different from that of 1905.
>
> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

You know, for a guy who likes to intimate that he knows so damn much, why is it
so hard to comprehend that things have been fine tuned in the years since the Wright
Bros.? Do planes today look like the ones from back then? Then why do you think that
we can't make a prop that's better today than in the '30s? Yeah, I know, I know,
you're an engineer. But what kind of engineer thinks a Boeing 707 can drop 12,000
feet in 3 or 4 seconds? That there are "air pockets" that allow a plane to do that
and not come completely apart?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ebee0ed776cd7456?hl

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 12 Feb 2007 11:48:53
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>
>Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:05:43
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 8:48 AM, in article h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com,
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.
>
> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

You have some kind of controls to keep the wind stable? Storage of power?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:07:26
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:05:43 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>You have some kind of controls to keep the wind stable? Storage of power?

I'm not sure where you got from my comments that I own a wind turbine
or even do research on it. And while I've done my share of odd jobs in
my life, I don't claim to be a research anything or ever to have done
it in my past, once I got out of business school. Unless the odd tax
question counts.

Try again - I read an article in the WSJ. My sole claim to authority
was that I read an article in the WSJ. My choice is to believe you
(congratulations on a post without obscenities, BTW) and Mr. Bull, or
believe the WSJ. In this case, I choose, yes, the WSJ.

To actually anser your question (to differentiate me from Mr. Bull),
no, I can't control wind stability enough to keep my Stetson on my
head. Storage of power is plugging the phone and tablet PC to the wall
at night. Do either of these count?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 13 Feb 2007 21:30:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:96h3t21m10ik7607gccv4pf7ev4efihpeq@4ax.com...
>
> My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.

Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 06:24:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>> My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.
>
>Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.

Better than making it a basis for an entire retractive career - you
know, sort of how I designed wind turbines in my time between other
jobs that no one in the real industry ever heard. Sort of how in all
those technologies that you were in at the start, the WSj never
mentions your name. No wonder you don't trust their journalism.

You're an ass, Mr. Bull.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 14 Feb 2007 14:08:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:i5s5t29kmsmkqb8vmcd5569o30imu8uq0c@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>> My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ.
>>
>>Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power.
>
> Better than making it a basis for an entire retractive career - you
> know, sort of how I designed wind turbines in my time between other
> jobs that no one in the real industry ever heard. Sort of how in all
> those technologies that you were in at the start, the WSj never
> mentions your name. No wonder you don't trust their journalism.

Yeah, the WSJ named a lot of names didn't they? Or maybe you didn't actually
read the article.

> You're an ass, Mr. Bull.

What's the matter, can't take the fact that just about anyone knows more
than you? What was it you say you do for a living again? Bike mechanic? Hey,
that's an honorable profession but it isn't likely to give you any more
information on alternate energy schemes you know.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 15:00:22
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:08:49 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>
>What's the matter, can't take the fact that just about anyone knows more
>than you? What was it you say you do for a living again? Bike mechanic? Hey,
>that's an honorable profession but it isn't likely to give you any more
>information on alternate energy schemes you know.

I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
should all play along...

Yep, I was a bike mechanic - about 35 years ago. Don't expect you to
keep up with what other people are doing when you have to track your
make-believe careers on your living room wall complete with diagrams
and digressions, Mr. Bull.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 15 Feb 2007 07:35:21
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
> or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
> moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
> Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
> should all play along...

I improved some of the trolling algorithms in the re-write. I'm
very pleased with the results.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 15 Feb 2007 22:43:06
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
>> or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
>> moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
>> Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
>> should all play along...

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> I improved some of the trolling algorithms in the re-write. I'm
> very pleased with the results.

You do need to do some work on the associative recall heuristics as the
product appears to be getting crossed lines in its memory modules. Witness
its reference to Curtis as a bike mechanic and BillC as a plumber.

Anyway if Micro$oft hear there's such a thing as a trolling algorithm
they'll retroactively patent it, and before long the product will have to
be referred to as Microsoft Kunich (tm) (on the positive side though, it
will frequently crash half way though a rant).

Date: 15 Feb 2007 20:14:12
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Donald Munro wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>>>I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
>>>or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
>>>moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
>>>Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
>>>should all play along...
>
>
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>>I improved some of the trolling algorithms in the re-write. I'm
>>very pleased with the results.
>
>
> You do need to do some work on the associative recall heuristics as the
> product appears to be getting crossed lines in its memory modules. Witness
> its reference to Curtis as a bike mechanic and BillC as a plumber.
>
> Anyway if Micro$oft hear there's such a thing as a trolling algorithm
> they'll retroactively patent it, and before long the product will have to
> be referred to as Microsoft Kunich (tm) (on the positive side though, it
> will frequently crash half way though a rant).
>

Shit... it does that already!

Date: 15 Feb 2007 16:05:49
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:43:06 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Anyway if Micro$oft hear there's such a thing as a trolling algorithm
>they'll retroactively patent it, and before long the product will have to
>be referred to as Microsoft Kunich (tm) (on the positive side though, it
>will frequently crash half way though a rant).

Yeah, but imagine if they turned it into a trollbot. Kunich on all the
lists, all the time. Something that might come up in a nighte after
one too many glasses of Pinot Noir.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:07:28
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
> or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
> moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
> Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
> should all play along...

My theory was that it was Chung trying to create a surge for
his Surge troll, and it seems to have worked. It must be a contender for
troll of the season so far.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 21:24:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

<snip >
> Yep, I was a bike mechanic - about 35 years ago. Don't expect you to
> keep up with what other people are doing when you have to track your
> make-believe careers on your living room wall complete with diagrams
> and digressions, Mr. Bull.

At least he didn't accuse you of animal husbandry.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 12 Feb 2007 21:31:26
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>>perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.
>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.

Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".

Date: 13 Feb 2007 08:58:32
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:31:26 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

> Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
>explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
>the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
>they return?
>
>I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
>the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
>subsidies".

See, you're not as stupid as they say. When you can't defend your
argument, attack an argument that I didn't make.

But you knew that - I think (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:53:53
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Surely you mean ass-hat.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 12:23:07
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:53:53 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
>> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
>Surely you mean ass-hat.

BTW, I have to admit, I don't understand the purpose of the
commercial, except to reinforce to current viewers that they should
keep watching ESPN. I haven't seen it aired anywhere else and to a
generally non-sport person like my wife (she basically knows cycling,
ACC basketball and a bit of ACC football), the references make no
sense. As far as she is concerned (AFASIC), yeah, the Spurs, whoever
they are, don't have a chance this year, in whatever sport they play.

They did mention Lance and athoning, though.

Me, I watch to see people bludgeoned unconscious in hockey games.
Cycling could use more of that stuff.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Feb 2007 23:10:28
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

>
> Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
> States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.
>

Especially when Congress is in session... ;)

Date: 12 Feb 2007 05:17:22
From: Richard Cheese
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

;) <<< This means you are a dumbass!

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:eqp43m11fdi@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>
>> Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
>> States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.
>>
>
> Especially when Congress is in session... ;)

Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:18:32
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:14 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <C1F535F5.204DF5...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> > And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> > windbags.
>
> The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane that
> will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House says so
> too. What's the deal?

Dumbass -

He's a Dittohead or some derivative of such. To the Dittoheads,
everything the "liberals" do is evil, even if the conservatives agree
with it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:02:31
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
> 1171258374.165871.194...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
> >> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
> >> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
> >> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
> >> anyway is a bunch of crap......
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Ripping our economy to shreds?
>
> > Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> > windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>
> > Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
> > 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
> > and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
> > barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
> > $5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
> > of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
> > investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
> > they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
> > is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
> > price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
> > happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
> > subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.
>
> > In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
> > power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
> > to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
> > such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
> > we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
> > when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
> > the entire continent of Africa.
>
> > Nice job of patriotism, you fucking moron.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> You do not know what I want you piece of shit.......
> You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
> Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge

Moron -

You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".

I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
exchange for their oil.

Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 05:51:03
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:02 PM, in article
1171260151.211341.18630@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
>> 1171258374.165871.194...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
>>>> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
>>>> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
>>>> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
>>>> anyway is a bunch of crap......
>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>> Ripping our economy to shreds?
>>
>>> Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
>>> windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>>
>>> Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
>>> 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
>>> and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
>>> barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
>>> $5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
>>> of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
>>> investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
>>> they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
>>> is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
>>> price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
>>> happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
>>> subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.
>>
>>> In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
>>> power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
>>> to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
>>> such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
>>> we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
>>> when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
>>> the entire continent of Africa.
>>
>>> Nice job of patriotism, you fucking moron.
>>
>>> thanks,
>>
>>> K. Gringioni.
>>
>> You do not know what I want you piece of shit.......
>> You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
>> Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge
>
>
>
> Moron -
>
>
> You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".
>
> I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
> Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
> giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
> exchange for their oil.
>
> Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

BULLSHIT assbag! You show me where I EVER said that! I SAID making drastic
changes to just OUR economy would be devastating.....

I NEVER said I am pro OPEC countries either.........

Nice try trust-fund baby.......

I see Mommy & Daddy's money went to a good cause. To teach you how to argue
on the Internet..

Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:48:37
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

ST wrote:
> To teach you how to argue on the Internet..

Now there's an entrepreneurial opportunity for rbr. Charge dumbasses (I
mean clients) to argue over the Internet. Perhaps we can even get funding
from the special olympics.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 21:38:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
> emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
> doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
> have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.

I don't think people are evil for causing global warming.
How were they supposed to know? There are some people,
however, who for reasons of their own convenience pretend
that nothing is going to happen and they don't have to
think about it. I don't think these people (mostly) are evil
either, but they are foolish and sometimes selfish.

I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
cost billions of lives. Where did you get that? Your
carbon load now scales more or less with your standard of
living and the vast majority of people in the world have
a fairly low standard of living, but they aren't about
to drop dead from their low carbon emissions. The problem
is reconciling an attempt to keep CO2 down with everybody's
perfectly understandable desire for an improved standard
of living. As long as people like you go around saying
"I don't care, I can afford my big car," this is going
to be difficult.

The rest of what you quoted, of course, completely
contradicts your previous arguments that warming isn't
happening and even if it is we shouldn't do anything
about it. They want to both reduce emissions and adapt
(since even reducing emissions will never get us back
to 20thC climate).

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm
>
> "The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
> say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
> fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
> humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."
>
> ""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
> millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
> climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
> adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
> reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
> variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
> emissions and impacts."
>
> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in Redwoods
> would remain unchanged.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 06:31:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1171258717.956904.222020@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 9:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
>> causing
>> it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
>> emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
>> doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
>> have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.
>
> I don't think people are evil for causing global warming.
> How were they supposed to know?

Why do I get the idea that you're trying to unburden yourself?

> There are some people,
> however, who for reasons of their own convenience pretend
> that nothing is going to happen and they don't have to
> think about it.

Since the worst case scenarios from the UN is that the oceans will ride 17
cm (9 inches) in the next century exactly what is it that you believe they
should worry about?

> I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
> cost billions of lives.

That's because you don't understand the issues. And I'm tired of explaining
it to you since you don't really want to know anything about it. You only
want to pretend that the USA is composed of evil people who should be
stopped at everything they're doing. You seem to prefer those nice honest Al
Qaida members.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 08:55:57
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:31:25 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>That's because you don't understand the issues. And I'm tired of explaining
>it to you since you don't really want to know anything about it. You only
>want to pretend that the USA is composed of evil people who should be
>stopped at everything they're doing. You seem to prefer those nice honest Al
>Qaida members.

And you appear to believe that everyone in the USA is incapable of
doing anything that rises above their own self-interest. Frankly, I've
never known anyone with such a constant low opinion of US citizens in
particular and the human race in general.

I'm starting to think that the reason you hold us liberals in such low
esteem is that some of them were on a sidewalk on their own time once,
protesting for a cause other than their own self-interest, and they
slowed you down for a second or two - no doubt enough reason to hold a
grudge for a lifetime.

At least be consistent. If your issue that nothing is needed to be
done and nothing is really all that wrong, don't quote an article
that, in fact, proposes action. If it ain't people, then the people
can keep right on keeping on, just as they are. I happen to disagree,
especially if the concern is that we will only have two TVs in every
house rather than three. I think our economy will adapt to all that
un-American conservatism.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Feb 2007 21:32:54
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:

>
> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
> anyway is a bunch of crap......

Dumbass -

Ripping our economy to shreds?

Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.

In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.

Nice job of patriotism, you fucking moron.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 06:26:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171258374.165871.194880@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
>> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
>> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy
>> to
>> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
>> anyway is a bunch of crap......
>
> Ripping our economy to shreds?
>
> Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind generator.
Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient as
the most modern one's today.

The ran it through the war and then after a decade of records they put it
all together, wrote a complete report on it and their report showed the wind
generators will never be able to earn their own expenses. So they tore down
the wind generator they built and sold off the scrap. They gave the patents
and the records to the public. Nasty good for nothing capitalist pigs.

The wind power people of today have read all of the records and ignored
them. They built the generators that we see today in several places around
California. And sure enough - it costs more to build a wind generator than
they can return in energy.

So the Liberals sit around and blame the laws of economics on capitalism.

> Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
> 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
> and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
> barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
> $5 billion in 1980 dollars.

In case you missed it - shale oil and tar sands are hydrocarbon fuels like
coal and oil. Oh, that's right, you don't even know what the issues are that
you're so quick to talk about.

> In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
> power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
> to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
> such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
> we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
> when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
> the entire continent of Africa.

Let's put it this way - if it takes 10 barrels of Saudi oil to produce 1
barrel worth of wind power, it makes a great deal more sense to just use the
single barrel to generate power.

Tough concept for someone without much on the ball for sure.

Date: 15 Feb 2007 10:31:21
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 15, 6:35 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
> > or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
> > moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
> > Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
> > should all play along...
>
> I improved some of the trolling algorithms in the re-write. I'm
> very pleased with the results.

I'm calling bullshit on that. The algorithms look
similar, but the posting volume has gone up; I think
you just moved him to a better server farm. Nothing
wrong with that (Google also runs on commodity hardware),
but I do think you need to turn down the abusive-language
module threshold, as it seems he's devolving from argument
to insult faster than before. Or maybe I'm mis-remembering.

Ben

Date: 15 Feb 2007 16:23:05
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171564281.424109.122150@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 6:35 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > > I have to conclude that this isn't really Kunich at all, but Crit Pro
> > > or someone that is trying to see if they can project an even more
> > > moronic persona than the original Kunich. But until he is unmasked and
> > > Kunich is, in fact, found to still be in the freezer, I guess we
> > > should all play along...
> >
> > I improved some of the trolling algorithms in the re-write. I'm
> > very pleased with the results.
>
> I'm calling bullshit on that. The algorithms look
> similar, but the posting volume has gone up; I think
> you just moved him to a better server farm. Nothing
> wrong with that (Google also runs on commodity hardware),
> but I do think you need to turn down the abusive-language
> module threshold, as it seems he's devolving from argument
> to insult faster than before. Or maybe I'm mis-remembering.
>
> Ben

I think you're right, Ben. Now the insults are in the first sentence of his first
response where they used to be toward the end of the post.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Howard Kveck wrote:

<snip >
>
> I think you're right, Ben. Now the insults are in the first
> sentence of his first
> response where they used to be toward the end of the post.
>

As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best part for
last.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 16 Feb 2007 08:27:42
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39 GMT, William Asher wrote:
> As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
> part for last.

That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were st to eat your
steak first.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 16 Feb 2007 10:37:56
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39 GMT, William Asher wrote:
>
>>As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
>>part for last.
>
>
> That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were st to eat your
> steak first.
>
Life is short, eat dessert first... :)

Date: 16 Feb 2007 22:42:17
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:er4tsu067o@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39 GMT, William Asher wrote:
>>
>>>As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
>>>part for last.
>>
>>
>> That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were st to eat your
>> steak first.
>>
> Life is short, eat dessert first.

Well, I have to say you're living proof of someone that's short eating
desert.

Date: 17 Feb 2007 09:43:13
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Well, I have to say you're living proof of someone that's short eating
> desert.

There must have been a software tweak to the input-output filters of the
insult generation neural network. The insults seem to be slightly
more subtle than before. Have the changes been checked into CVS yet ?

Date: 15 Feb 2007 23:50:32
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <25nat2do62v56fta80nc7rbf8m42j47s7v@4ax.com >,
Ewoud Dronkert <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote:

> On 16 Feb 2007 00:47:39 GMT, William Asher wrote:
> > As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
> > part for last.
>
> That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were st to eat your
> steak first.

But if there's a fire, you can pick the steak up and take it with you. That's not
so easily done with the frites or grilled brussels sprouts.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Feb 2007 09:55:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

William Asher wrote:
>> > As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best
>> > part for last.

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> That is true. What if there's a fire? Then you were st to eat your
>> steak first.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> But if there's a fire, you can pick the steak up and take it with you. That's not
> so easily done with the frites or grilled brussels sprouts.

Anyway a true LIVEDRUNKARD following that philosophy would polish off his
alcoholic beverages first.

Date: 16 Feb 2007 08:33:08
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:55:36 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Anyway a true LIVEDRUNKARD following that philosophy would polish off his
>alcoholic beverages first.

I only give up the ale for a really good creme brulee. A man could
burn to death, standing there, trying to make that decision.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 15 Feb 2007 18:57:19
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

William Asher wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I think you're right, Ben. Now the insults are in the first
>> sentence of his first
>> response where they used to be toward the end of the post.
>>
>
> As you get older, you realize there is no point in saving the best part for
> last.
>

It's the only part anyone's likely to agree with.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 05:44:37
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
1171258374.165871.194880@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
>> force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
>> China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
>> shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
>> anyway is a bunch of crap......
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Ripping our economy to shreds?
>
> Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
> windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?
>
> Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
> 80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
> and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
> barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
> $5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
> of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
> investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
> they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
> is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
> price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
> happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
> subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.
>
> In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
> power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
> to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
> such, we have to get involved in fuckholes like Iraq, a place where
> we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
> when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
> the entire continent of Africa.
>
> Nice job of patriotism, you fucking moron.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

You do not know what I want you piece of shit.......
You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 05:06:45
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 8:41 PM, in article
ceSzh.599$tD2.336@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
> it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
> emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
> doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
> have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm
>
> "The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
> say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
> fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
> humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."
>
> ""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
> millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
> climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
> adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
> reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
> variability and change, rather than tinkering at the gins of both
> emissions and impacts."
>
> Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
> 2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the in Redwoods
> would remain unchanged.
>
>

It makes no sense...........
The US is responsible for 20% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Nobody is
putting that in perspective to the size of our economy, the amount of wealth
we distribute to other parts of the world, etc..

EVEN IF we were even able to reduce OUR greenhouse gas emissions by a HUGE
25%!! That only equates to 5% of the global total AND China and India will
make that up in less than 5 years!!

AND!! China and India are EXCLUDED (as developing economies) from the Kyoto
limits anyway?!?!?! Have you greeny types said ANYTHING about the constant
massive amount of coal-fired energy plants the Chinese are building??

This crap about Kyoto?? Do not forgot it was ALL of our Senators who shot it
down.. Ds & Rs!

As Gore said on Larry King before....... "This will give us a chance to put
into place things we SHOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAY!"

And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
windbags.

It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......

Most of you do not even think these changes forced on us would even effect
you much.......... And you bitched about $2.50 gas? When it goes up to $5
which corporate right-wing fanatic will you blame then?

I do not give a damn what you people say about this post......
It means nothing to my life

Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:14:17
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> windbags.

The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane that
will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House says so
too. What's the deal?

_________________
"As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the
members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The
Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of
the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the
presidency.

"In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide
military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her
district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it
continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California
compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for
security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure
communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to
use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security
for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is
exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a
political issue."
_________________

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php

And:
_________________
"The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.

"This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House
spokesman Tony Snow said.
_________________

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/

Try to keep up.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:27:26
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
>
> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>
> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
> succeed.

<snip >

Dumbass -

Have you changed?

You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
supported you.

Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 04:39:57
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/17/07 8:27 PM, in article
1171772846.138961.124950@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>
>> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
>> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>>
>> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
>> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
>> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
>> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
>> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
>> succeed.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Have you changed?
>
> You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
> or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
> supported you.
>
> Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
> yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

Yo Ass Bag....
I have college education AND am still moving up.......
Unlike you I am not a Trust Fund Baby.

Well...... I and many others do not believe you are straight.. We are even
then.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 09:23:31
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

ST wrote:
>
> Well...... I and many others do not believe you are straight.. We are even
> then.
>
Kurgan has scoliosis?

Date: 18 Feb 2007 13:43:35
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/18/07 12:23 AM, in article 53qgo1F1tuht7U1@mid.individual.net, "Kyle
Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote:

> ST wrote:
>>
>> Well...... I and many others do not believe you are straight.. We are even
>> then.
>>
> Kurgan has scoliosis?

Peyronies

Date: 17 Feb 2007 16:10:47
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 6:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 2/17/07 3:27 PM, in article
> 1171754826.463984.324...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>
> >>> Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
> >>> too. That's real news.
>
> >> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
> >> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
> >> hope to balance the comments here.
>
> >>> I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
> >>> that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>
> >> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
> >> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
> >> that they were only letting her know the rules?
>
> >> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
> >> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
> >> postings appear in the same vein.
>
> > Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
> > call for help. I specialize in hyperbole and challenges to provoke
> > discussion, but you are WAY over the edge, and while I freely admit I
> > do it on purpose I think you, literally, believe what you say.
> > That's scary.
> > No hyperbole here, I'll kiss your ass next to the podium at Cross
> > Nat's right after the Pro ceremony in a few years if any regular here
> > assasinates Bush while he's President.
> > I have NO plans to go to KC.
> > Bush and Co. are criminals, and have done more damage to the
> > Republican Party than anybody since Hoover.
> > You just can't seem to admit that ANY Republican could possibly have
> > done anything wrong, unless it was Specter who is the Republican
> > versions of Lieberman.
> > I like Lieberman a whole lot better than Specter for what it's worth.
> > Bill C
>
> Bill!!
>
> I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
> MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
> government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
> having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.
>
> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>
> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
> succeed.
>
> It is the same as some of you say regarding other cyclists.......
> Some guys who are perpetual Cat 4s are lambasted for not moving ahead. MAYBE
> they do not WANT TO or DO NOT have the discipline to do what it takes to
> move ahead..
>
> I will never be more than a Cat 3 because I am NOT willing to do what it
> takes to move up. I am not willing to sacrifice other areas of my life to do
> it. If someone made a conscious decision they are not willing to do the work
> it takes to get a degree to move up their standard of living that is a
> personal decision..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Even if you figure the cost, at a living wage, of the mandatory
insurance bill here in Mass., for the middle class it's a disaster.
They projected $300 a month which at $10/hr. was an extra 30 hours/
month or you get your tax return taken and face prosecution.
Way to go. Force the working poor to decide between feeding their
kids or go to jail. Of course everything is paid in full for the
welfare folks.
If Lou Dobbs has one thing right it's that both Parties are out to
fuck over the lower middle class. The Republicans to support the rich,
the Democrats to support the won't contributes.
Bill C

Date: 17 Feb 2007 23:31:38
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Bill C wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/17/07 3:27 PM, in article
>>1171754826.463984.324...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>>
>>>>>Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
>>>>>too. That's real news.
>>
>>>>Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on these
>>>>groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
>>>>hope to balance the comments here.
>>
>>>>>I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
>>>>>that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>>
>>>>You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
>>>>and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
>>>>that they were only letting her know the rules?
>>
>>>>Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
>>>>second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
>>>>postings appear in the same vein.
>>
>>>Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
>>>call for help. I specialize in hyperbole and challenges to provoke
>>>discussion, but you are WAY over the edge, and while I freely admit I
>>>do it on purpose I think you, literally, believe what you say.
>>>That's scary.
>>>No hyperbole here, I'll kiss your ass next to the podium at Cross
>>>Nat's right after the Pro ceremony in a few years if any regular here
>>>assasinates Bush while he's President.
>>>I have NO plans to go to KC.
>>>Bush and Co. are criminals, and have done more damage to the
>>>Republican Party than anybody since Hoover.
>>>You just can't seem to admit that ANY Republican could possibly have
>>>done anything wrong, unless it was Specter who is the Republican
>>>versions of Lieberman.
>>>I like Lieberman a whole lot better than Specter for what it's worth.
>>>Bill C
>>
>>Bill!!
>>
>>I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
>>MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
>>government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
>>having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.
>>
>>The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
>>layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>>
>>Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
>>can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
>>(intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
>>at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
>>are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
>>succeed.
>>
>>It is the same as some of you say regarding other cyclists.......
>>Some guys who are perpetual Cat 4s are lambasted for not moving ahead. MAYBE
>>they do not WANT TO or DO NOT have the discipline to do what it takes to
>>move ahead..
>>
>>I will never be more than a Cat 3 because I am NOT willing to do what it
>>takes to move up. I am not willing to sacrifice other areas of my life to do
>>it. If someone made a conscious decision they are not willing to do the work
>>it takes to get a degree to move up their standard of living that is a
>>personal decision..- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Even if you figure the cost, at a living wage, of the mandatory
> insurance bill here in Mass., for the middle class it's a disaster.
> They projected $300 a month which at $10/hr. was an extra 30 hours/
> month or you get your tax return taken and face prosecution.
> Way to go. Force the working poor to decide between feeding their
> kids or go to jail. Of course everything is paid in full for the
> welfare folks.
> If Lou Dobbs has one thing right it's that both Parties are out to
> fuck over the lower middle class. The Republicans to support the rich,
> the Democrats to support the won't contributes.
> Bill C
>

Dobbs is the ONLY Republican (and lets face it, he is a Repbulican) that
I even remotely trust, simply becuase he gets it! Big business doesnt
give a flying fuck who is in charge, as long as the needs of big
business are met.

Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:16:12
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 22, 11:25 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 8:26 am, Russell.bot wrote:
> >> To really gripe your ass, I'll tell you another weakness. I carry two
> >> dollar bills in my right hand pocket and three in the center
> >> compartment of my Prius, so I have no excuse for not giving when
> >> someone on the street asks me for a handout.
>
> > That's more delusion. No one has made any comment or criticism of you
> > doing whatever the fuck you want with your money.
>
> His delusions seem to imply that because he gives away his money others
> should be more willing than he to do so. In fact, so willing that they won't
> complain when it is taken from them by force.

This is a newsgroup that luvs irony.

The irony here is that he talks about his faith in the better motives
of humans, but he doesn't really believe it. He advocates using the
iron fist of The State to enforce his "faith." Some faith that is.

He acts as if you are concerned with his use of his money, when in
fact it is he who is concerned with how your money is spent. He has
no compunction in using The State to sieze your money under threat of
violence and to spend it how he deems most appropriate.

It was a very muddle-headed upside-down outburst, all in all.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 09:21:50
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 22, 8:26 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> Its just unlike you and Stateslave, I don't
> mind helping someone else - without penalty,
> without punishment, just helping.

The Russell Schwartz-Bot is in an infinite delusion loop. What can
break the loop?!

Not once have I ever made a single comment about not helping others,
or that people should not be helped. It is a total fabrication.

> To really gripe your ass, I'll tell you another weakness. I carry two
> dollar bills in my right hand pocket and three in the center
> compartment of my Prius, so I have no excuse for not giving when
> someone on the street asks me for a handout.

That more delusion. No one has made any comment or criticism of you
doing whatever the fuck you want with your money.

Date: 22 Feb 2007 19:25:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1172164910.328218.33850@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 8:26 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
>> Its just unlike you and Stateslave, I don't
>> mind helping someone else - without penalty,
>> without punishment, just helping.
>
> The Russell Schwartz-Bot is in an infinite delusion loop. What can
> break the loop?!
>
> Not once have I ever made a single comment about not helping others,
> or that people should not be helped. It is a total fabrication.
>
>> To really gripe your ass, I'll tell you another weakness. I carry two
>> dollar bills in my right hand pocket and three in the center
>> compartment of my Prius, so I have no excuse for not giving when
>> someone on the street asks me for a handout.
>
> That more delusion. No one has made any comment or criticism of you
> doing whatever the fuck you want with your money.

His delusions seem to imply that because he gives away his money others
should be more willing than he to do so. In fact, so willing that they won't
complain when it is taken from them by force.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 00:23:24
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/17/07 4:10 PM, in article
1171757447.918209.69070@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 6:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> On 2/17/07 3:27 PM, in article
>> 1171754826.463984.324...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:1171725426.398359.152890@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Feb 17, 12:55 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M&mode=related&search=
>>
>>>>> Great rebuttal. The Democrats have scumbags who say and do stupid crap
>>>>> too. That's real news.
>>
>>>> Apparently it is. I happen to be a moderate but the leftist leaning on
>>>> these
>>>> groups is so strong that if I were 500 degrees right of center I couldn't
>>>> hope to balance the comments here.
>>
>>>>> I'll guarantee you won't find a single person here who won't agree
>>>>> that some Democrats have said and done some dumb things.
>>
>>>> You mean like arguing that when the Department of Defense quotes that rules
>>>> and regulations to Pelosi after she asked for a rediculously large plane,
>>>> that they were only letting her know the rules?
>>
>>>> Let's face it Bill, most of the posters here would assassinate Bush in one
>>>> second if they thought that they could get away with it. And often your
>>>> postings appear in the same vein.
>>
>>> Dude the snakes and elephants aren't real. Just sit in the corner and
>>> call for help. I specialize in hyperbole and challenges to provoke
>>> discussion, but you are WAY over the edge, and while I freely admit I
>>> do it on purpose I think you, literally, believe what you say.
>>> That's scary.
>>> No hyperbole here, I'll kiss your ass next to the podium at Cross
>>> Nat's right after the Pro ceremony in a few years if any regular here
>>> assasinates Bush while he's President.
>>> I have NO plans to go to KC.
>>> Bush and Co. are criminals, and have done more damage to the
>>> Republican Party than anybody since Hoover.
>>> You just can't seem to admit that ANY Republican could possibly have
>>> done anything wrong, unless it was Specter who is the Republican
>>> versions of Lieberman.
>>> I like Lieberman a whole lot better than Specter for what it's worth.
>>> Bill C
>>
>> Bill!!
>>
>> I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
>> MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
>> government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
>> having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.
>>
>> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
>> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>>
>> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
>> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
>> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
>> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
>> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
>> succeed.
>>
>> It is the same as some of you say regarding other cyclists.......
>> Some guys who are perpetual Cat 4s are lambasted for not moving ahead. MAYBE
>> they do not WANT TO or DO NOT have the discipline to do what it takes to
>> move ahead..
>>
>> I will never be more than a Cat 3 because I am NOT willing to do what it
>> takes to move up. I am not willing to sacrifice other areas of my life to do
>> it. If someone made a conscious decision they are not willing to do the work
>> it takes to get a degree to move up their standard of living that is a
>> personal decision..- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Even if you figure the cost, at a living wage, of the mandatory
> insurance bill here in Mass., for the middle class it's a disaster.
> They projected $300 a month which at $10/hr. was an extra 30 hours/
> month or you get your tax return taken and face prosecution.
> Way to go. Force the working poor to decide between feeding their
> kids or go to jail. Of course everything is paid in full for the
> welfare folks.
> If Lou Dobbs has one thing right it's that both Parties are out to
> fuck over the lower middle class. The Republicans to support the rich,
> the Democrats to support the won't contributes.
> Bill C
>

We are a very strong country because of those that have succeeded. Sticking
it those that have succeeded to give to those that (mostly..) have decided
not to try is good how?

I am making a general statement I know nothing of the particular wacky state
plan you are talking about.

Working poor sounds real fuzzy and emotional.......
Do you connect any personal responsibility to any of those? When you got one
of your first jobs did you really think you would do that for the rest of
your life? If you did not have the desire or discipline to move up any
further financially would you be considered "working poor" or maybe lazy??
Especially if you knew there was a gov-ment program to latch on to....

Date: 13 Feb 2007 05:52:40
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
>> windbags.
>
> The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane
> that
> will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House
> says so
> too. What's the deal?
>
> _________________
> "As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of
> the
> members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House.
> The
> Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the
> leader of
> the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession
> to the
> presidency.
>
> "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide
> military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and
> her
> district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that
> it
> continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California
> compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights
> for
> security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure
> communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the
> recommendation to
> use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of
> security
> for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that
> is
> exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a
> political issue."
> _________________
>
> http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
>
> And:
> _________________
> "The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.
>
> "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White
> House
> spokesman Tony Snow said.
> _________________
>
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
>
> Try to keep up.

Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!

Date: 20 Feb 2007 13:52:42
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 19, 9:34 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:36 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > However - I have been following this story, and some of the "outrage"
> > directed at Speaker Pelosi is that, "the maximum that she gets should
> > be what Hastert's plane". Usually it doesn't sound like most know the
> > details that Hastert flew on several aircraft types including the type
> > that Speaker Pelosi will get. Some who one would normally think are
> > pro-military even pooh-poohed the Pentagon claims that headwinds are
> > an issue with travel.
>
> The reality doesn't seem to matter those pushing on this. They seem
> to think that as long as they can keep things spinning fast enough,
> and enough shit flying they can gain some advantage by what sticks.
> Unfortunately ideology matters a lot more than the truth, or reality
> to a lot of people. They want, desperately, to believe the worst about
> those they disagree with, so they do, whether it's justified or not.
> Bill C

Here's an article from the Tampa Bay Tribune, which covers the area
where Rep Adam Putnam represents in the House:

http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB16WIUDYE.html

** ** **

One of the most prominent was U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow. Putnam,
the third-ranking House Republican, had pushed the Pelosi story
aggressively the day before, both in print and on television.

"This is not about having secure communications and secure aircraft
available to her. It's about an arrogance of extravagance that demands
a jumbo jet that costs $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her
buddies back and forth to California," Putnam told Fox News.

It turns out there's no evidence Pelosi requested any such thing. A
day after Snow's reks, the nonpartisan House sergeant-at-arms
released a written statement explaining that for security reasons he
asked for a plane that could carry Pelosi nonstop to her home in San
Francisco, a much longer distance than former Speaker Dennis Hastert,
of Illinois, had to cover.

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi
request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in
The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

"This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us,"
Putnam said. "Did we jump on it? Yes."

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story,
whatever its legitimacy, "the first break [Republicans] have had from
the media in driving our message since before the k Foley story
broke."

Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:17:12
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 19, 9:34 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

> Unfortunately ideology matters a lot more than the truth, or
> reality to a lot of people.

No, what is unfortunate is when an ideology diverges from truth and
reality. Then we call it "blind" or "corrupt." In principle, a
*worthwhile* ideology has its foundation in reality and serves as a
lens for glimpsing at truth.

Pop-politic ideology isn't worth reading in 2 paragraphs deep.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Thoreau

Date: 20 Feb 2007 15:23:12
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
> striking at the root." -- Thoreau

Are you sure? That sounds like Franklin.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 19 Feb 2007 14:33:07
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

Date: 19 Feb 2007 14:46:15
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

y_p_w wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:34 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 19, 11:36 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>However - I have been following this story, and some of the "outrage"
>>>directed at Speaker Pelosi is that, "the maximum that she gets should
>>>be what Hastert's plane". Usually it doesn't sound like most know the
>>>details that Hastert flew on several aircraft types including the type
>>>that Speaker Pelosi will get. Some who one would normally think are
>>>pro-military even pooh-poohed the Pentagon claims that headwinds are
>>>an issue with travel.
>>
>> The reality doesn't seem to matter those pushing on this. They seem
>>to think that as long as they can keep things spinning fast enough,
>>and enough shit flying they can gain some advantage by what sticks.
>> Unfortunately ideology matters a lot more than the truth, or reality
>>to a lot of people. They want, desperately, to believe the worst about
>>those they disagree with, so they do, whether it's justified or not.
>> Bill C
>
>
> The whole situation was a lot more nuanced than most people with an
> agenda (for or against Speaker Pelosi) would understand. I've been
> following this story strictly for the entertainment value. So much of
> this argument has to do with the arcane details of aircraft size and
> possibly intentional misinterpretations of words used in particular
> statements.
>
> Certainly there are a lot of aircraft in the Pentagon inventory used
> to transport VIPs. It's disingenuous for anyone to claim that using
> such transportation is diverting vital military assets.
>

If they were making an analogy of plane size to penis sizer, it goes to
prove that Pelosi has bigger stones than Hastert could ever hope to find.

Date: 20 Feb 2007 02:43:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:erd9im22c5l@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> If they were making an analogy of plane size to penis sizer, it goes to
> prove that Pelosi has bigger stones than Hastert could ever hope to find.

The funny thing is that she has them and you don't.

Date: 19 Feb 2007 09:34:04
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 19, 11:36 am, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> However - I have been following this story, and some of the "outrage"
> directed at Speaker Pelosi is that, "the maximum that she gets should
> be what Hastert's plane". Usually it doesn't sound like most know the
> details that Hastert flew on several aircraft types including the type
> that Speaker Pelosi will get. Some who one would normally think are
> pro-military even pooh-poohed the Pentagon claims that headwinds are
> an issue with travel.

The reality doesn't seem to matter those pushing on this. They seem
to think that as long as they can keep things spinning fast enough,
and enough shit flying they can gain some advantage by what sticks.
Unfortunately ideology matters a lot more than the truth, or reality
to a lot of people. They want, desperately, to believe the worst about
those they disagree with, so they do, whether it's justified or not.
Bill C

Date: 19 Feb 2007 08:36:37
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 18, 9:44 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1171858108.224465.5...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > My only concern here in this thread are that the claims that Speaker
> > Pelosi asked for a 757 as well as time on the House floor spent in an
> > attempt to embarass her over a non-issue. I mean, claiming that her
> > request pretty much meant a longer range 12-seat jet than Hastert's
> > **typical** 12-seat jet doesn't carry quite the same outrage as
> > claiming that she'd pack a luxury 757 with her political supporters.
>
> That's the situation in a nutshell. The thing I wonder is this: We've seen the
> response letter that DoD sent her and her staff. What we haven't seen is the initial
> inquiry (or to use TK's word - "demand") she sent them. I'd say that hasn't been
> leaked because it doesn't support what the Washington Times reported and the House
> GOP have run with. It's a smear, pure and simple.

Well - I did read from the Los Angeles Times that her staff was asked
her staff's formal request, and nothing was given. I would guess that
the questions/negotiations were handled over the phone by lower level
staffers, but that the final DoD response was in the form of a letter
approved by the Asst Secr of Defense.

However - I have been following this story, and some of the "outrage"
directed at Speaker Pelosi is that, "the maximum that she gets should
be what Hastert's plane". Usually it doesn't sound like most know the
details that Hastert flew on several aircraft types including the type
that Speaker Pelosi will get. Some who one would normally think are
pro-military even pooh-poohed the Pentagon claims that headwinds are
an issue with travel.

Date: 19 Feb 2007 20:03:56
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171902997.332194.54330@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

> However - I have been following this story, and some of the "outrage"
> directed at Speaker Pelosi is that, "the maximum that she gets should
> be what Hastert's plane". Usually it doesn't sound like most know the
> details that Hastert flew on several aircraft types including the type
> that Speaker Pelosi will get. Some who one would normally think are
> pro-military even pooh-poohed the Pentagon claims that headwinds are
> an issue with travel.

Those people would pooh-pooh that when it's convenient.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Feb 2007 20:44:38
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 18, 8:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Supporting someone as disgustingly corrupt as Pelosi makes you no better
> than she is.

Who said I'm her supporter? My Rep is Ellen Tauscher. I'm actually
ambivalent about Speaker Pelosi. I don't find her all that bad or all
that great. I'd probably vote for her if I lived in her district, but
it's not because of any total agreement with her positions. I just
find the Repubs considerably more unsavory.

I'm just sort of puzzled by all the inaccurate stories of her plane
flights home. The Pentagon considers it a non-issue now. She's
pretty much going to get a ride on a C-37A each weekend, which is the
appropriate tool for the job.

I also hit post before I finished my last thought so....

I am a bit curious as to the reimbursement policy for this (Shimkus's)
ride. If I were advising Speaker Pelosi, I would suggest never using
it to transport another member of Congress in a political panic
situation.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 20:08:28
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 18, 6:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
> driven snow?

Politics is a tough business and she's a tough cookie. I'm sure at
times she can be a cast-iron b*tch and her choices for House posts are
politically motivated. Speaker Pelosi is an experienced politician,
as should anyone who becomes Speaker of the House. I don't
necessarily agree with everything she does or all her positions. I
really don't care for her predecessor. The handling of the k Foley
page scandal was especially unsavory.

My only concern here in this thread are that the claims that Speaker
Pelosi asked for a 757 as well as time on the House floor spent in an
attempt to embarass her over a non-issue. I mean, claiming that her
request pretty much meant a longer range 12-seat jet than Hastert's
**typical** 12-seat jet doesn't carry quite the same outrage as
claiming that she'd pack a luxury 757 with her political supporters.

I find nothing unethical about the reported queries as to the
conditions where VIP transportation is available or who is allowed to
accompany her. If additional passengers (i.e. her family) are willing
to pay to accompany her on a flight where the costs are already fixed,
then more power to them and the Treasury. Friends may be another
matter, but they asked and were turned down. I never heard that she
or her staff got belligerent about it.

And please - it's spelled "unindicted".

Oh - earlier there was a question as to the veracity of the use of a
plane to ferry Representative John Shimkus for a press conference.
The following is a December 2006 blog entry from Chicago Sun-Times
Washington Bureau chief Lynn Sweet. She wrote this before Rep Pelosi
took over as Speaker of the House.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/10/sweet_column_scandal_splits_ha.html

"A week ago Sunday, about 8 p.m., Shimkus arrived at Scott Air Force
Base near Belleville to pick up his ride back to Washington. As
speaker, Hastert flies on U.S. aircraft. The government plane picked
up Shimkus and then headed to Aurora to board Hastert, who spent the
weekend at his Plano home.

Hastert's team was scrambling in reaction to the escalating fallout
from the Foley scandal.
Shimkus was returning to the capital because his staff had gotten an
urgent call earlier in the day from Hastert deputy chief of staff Mike
Stokke, who wanted Shimkus at the press conference with Hastert,
putting him on a national stage on their terms."

I am a bit curious as to the reimbursement policy for this ride. If I
were advising Speaker Pelosi, I would suggest never

Date: 18 Feb 2007 21:44:09
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1171858108.224465.5850@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote:

> My only concern here in this thread are that the claims that Speaker
> Pelosi asked for a 757 as well as time on the House floor spent in an
> attempt to embarass her over a non-issue. I mean, claiming that her
> request pretty much meant a longer range 12-seat jet than Hastert's
> **typical** 12-seat jet doesn't carry quite the same outrage as
> claiming that she'd pack a luxury 757 with her political supporters.

That's the situation in a nutshell. The thing I wonder is this: We've seen the
response letter that DoD sent her and her staff. What we haven't seen is the initial
inquiry (or to use TK's word - "demand") she sent them. I'd say that hasn't been
leaked because it doesn't support what the Washington Times reported and the House
GOP have run with. It's a smear, pure and simple.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Feb 2007 04:17:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171858108.224465.5850@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 6:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
>> driven snow?
>
> Politics is a tough business and she's a tough cookie.

If that's the way you want your politics run then why not use a gun? Most of
today's politicians are corrupt from top to bottom and it would do this
country good to arrest and try them and if found guilty to hang them as
allowed by federal statutes. If they made enough of a spectacle out of it,
we might have cleaner politics for a couple of years.

Supporting someone as disgustingly corrupt as Pelosi makes you no better
than she is.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 21:44:05
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <dx9Ch.3246$_73.26@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Supporting someone as disgustingly corrupt as Pelosi makes you no better
> than she is.

So what does it say about you for supporting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? If you
think Pelosi is "corrupt" then I can't imagine what they could be called.

By the way, you forfeit any right to ever complain about anyone "equating Bush
with Hitler" after you fired off that "Hitlary" the other day. Remember that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Feb 2007 15:25:12
From: y_p_w
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 16:04:12 -0800, "y_p_w" <y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
> >be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
> >service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
> >take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
> >be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
> >service.
>
> New speaker asks a question, you provide a complete answer with
> references so that they have a background. No different than we do
> when we get a new member of the board - we let them know what is paid,
> what isn't and who to talk to in a special case.

Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
was in fact asked.

Members of the executive branch regularly use military VIP
transporation to political functions and personal trips as a security
measure. I'm sure that VP Cheney could have taken one of these AF
executive jets on his hunting trips, along with his hunting buddies.
Given that Pelosi's staff were unfamiliar with the limits, I don't
find it surprising that they asked. So they were answered "no" about
some aspects - big deal. That doesn't mean the questions were out of
line.

Date: 19 Feb 2007 02:18:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171841112.630935.143960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
> the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
> seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
> the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
> question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
> was in fact asked.

That was my point. Look, there isn't any question that she wanted to put an
ABSCAM Unendicted Co-conspirator into an extremely sensitive position.
Neither is there any question that she had intended to put an impeached
Federal Judge Alsee Hastings who had been impeached for accepting bribes
into one of the most sensitive intelligence positions in this country if she
could have gotten Murtha in.

After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
driven snow?

Date: 19 Feb 2007 04:56:08
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/18/07 6:18 PM, in article
UN7Ch.3797$tD2.3408@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171841112.630935.143960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
>> the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
>> seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
>> the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
>> question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
>> was in fact asked.
>
> That was my point. Look, there isn't any question that she wanted to put an
> ABSCAM Unendicted Co-conspirator into an extremely sensitive position.
> Neither is there any question that she had intended to put an impeached
> Federal Judge Alsee Hastings who had been impeached for accepting bribes
> into one of the most sensitive intelligence positions in this country if she
> could have gotten Murtha in.
>
> After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
> driven snow?
>
>

Hell......
IF I did anything HALF as bad at those items I would NEVER get a security
clearance for work.

Date: 19 Feb 2007 15:00:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"ST" <no@no.com > wrote in message news:C1FE6DFD.20672A%no@no.com...
> On 2/18/07 6:18 PM, in article
> UN7Ch.3797$tD2.3408@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
> <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171841112.630935.143960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
>>> the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
>>> seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
>>> the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
>>> question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
>>> was in fact asked.
>>
>> That was my point. Look, there isn't any question that she wanted to put
>> an
>> ABSCAM Unendicted Co-conspirator into an extremely sensitive position.
>> Neither is there any question that she had intended to put an impeached
>> Federal Judge Alsee Hastings who had been impeached for accepting bribes
>> into one of the most sensitive intelligence positions in this country if
>> she
>> could have gotten Murtha in.
>>
>> After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
>> driven snow?
>
> Hell......
> IF I did anything HALF as bad at those items I would NEVER get a security
> clearance for work.

That's the point isn't it? Imagine our surprise to discover that when Murtha
was attacking the President that not ONE word was published in the New York
Times about his past? And if the independent Conservatives didn't out him
when Pelosi was trying to put him in charge of the HOUSE! you can bet the
his past would still be a closely guarded secret by the "press" so worried
about publishing all the news that's fit to print.

Alsee Hastings who was empeached for taking bribes in a racketeering case
was to be put up for chair of the house INTELLIGENCE committee! That would
be almost as enriching as Bill Clinton's relationship with Loral when they
handed missle guidance source code over to communist China.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <C1F69238.204E61%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> >> windbags.
> >
> > The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
> > plane that will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
> > House says so too. What's the deal?
> >
> > _________________
> > "As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security
> > of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the
> > House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities
> > as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the
> > line of succession to the presidency.
> >
> > "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to
> > provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington
> > and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended
> > that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in
> > California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop
> > flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will
> > ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the
> > recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary
> > levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret
> > that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context
> > has evolved into a political issue."
> > _________________
> >
> > http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
> >
> > And:
> > _________________
> > "The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.
> >
> > "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White
> > House spokesman Tony Snow said.
> > _________________
> >
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
> >
> > Try to keep up.
>
>
> Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!

!!!!!

Seriously, Steve, why is it so hard to comprehend the above info? Pelosi said she
was fine to take commercial flights - the security issues are what this is about.
Did you have a problem with Dennis Hastert using the same military flight
arrangements when he was Speaker of the House? The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.

By the way:

> >> And your Queen Bitch Pilosi

No issues with women in power, Steve?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 12:04:07
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 18, 12:03 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <C1FCD6C3.206391...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> > I DO BELIEVE there are bad apples on both sides!!
> > MY disagreement is with the core philosophy. I do NOT agree that the
> > government is responsible for your (personal) way of life to the degree of
> > having the huge safety nets the Dems are wanting.
>
> > The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
> > layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>
> Then why are you so rabidly in favor of an administration that has ignored the
> Constitution and rule of law so frequently? FISA courts for warrants to spy on US
> citizens? Bah! Habeus corpus? Nah, that's old school. Geneva COnvention rules?
> International treaties? Eh, we don't feel like it...
>
> The reason you have no objections to those things is simple. You like to think of
> youself as a brave, tough guy, willing to do whatever it takes. But really you
> accept that stuff because you're afraid. When 9-11 happened, you wet yourself. "Oh
> no, the nasty brown people are out to get us!" Essentially it gets down to you
> wanting to feel safe hiding in Mommy's skirt, Mommy in the form of big tough Gearge
> W. Bush.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

They are cooking the reports on that too.

http://tinyurl.com/26olb8
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations,
riage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the
four years after 9/11 - despite no evidence linking them to terror
activity, a Justice Department audit found Tuesday

More information on corruption:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021901113.html

and lack of control here. These people are NOT under the UCMJ:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=119795&ran=143615
Quoted:
Congress will likely be grappling with those issues for months, if not
years. Already two House members, Reps. David Price, D-N.C., and Jan
Schakowsky, D-Ill., have introduced legislation aimed at injecting
more transparency and accountability into the contracting process.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., also has called for aggressive monitoring of
Iraq contracting.

According to the latest Pentagon estimate, 100,000 civilian
contractors work in Iraq - almost as many as there are uniformed
soldiers. As many as half of those are said to work for security
companies

My wife just laughs because I was bitching up and down about this way
back when Bush1 started introducing the concept of privatizing the
military. There are SO many problems with the whole concept, as
conceived, it's ridiculous. It's a giant scam that has very little
oversight, and very little teeth. There have been numerous reported
refusals of "contractors" to do their jobs because it was too
dangerous. This is shit that needs to get done, and the military has
lost the manpower because the "contractors" were supposed to do it.
Now the military is having to fill in, in the worst spots with people
they don't have, and who aren't really trained for that duty.

I'd be fully in favor of a "Foreign Legion" basically operating under
the same principles as France's. People don't realize how many people
enlist into the US military from other places as a route to
citizenship.

Bill C

Date: 21 Feb 2007 00:02:14
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <1172001847.217982.203180@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> My wife just laughs because I was bitching up and down about this way
> back when Bush1 started introducing the concept of privatizing the
> military. There are SO many problems with the whole concept, as
> conceived, it's ridiculous. It's a giant scam that has very little
> oversight, and very little teeth.

I think Matthew Yglesias has a pretty good analysis of why the privatization /
contractor arrangement is not what it was cracked up to be.

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/the_trouble_with_contracting/index.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 11:28:31
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 3:31 pm, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com > wrote:

> Dobbs is the ONLY Republican (and lets face it, he is a Repbulican) that
> I even remotely trust, simply becuase he gets it!

Dobbs makes Olberman look brilliant. I don't especially mean this as
a compliment.

> Big business doesnt give a flying fuck
> who is in charge, as long as the needs of big
> business are met.

I sort of wish no one was in charge, but to the extent that hope is
unrealistic, I too don't care as long as my needs are met. So I'm am
not getting it like Dobbs apparently does -- what specifically is your
complaint?

What do you think changes the nature of human beings when the they go
into "public" service? Since a person who goes into "public" service
could just as well go into big business, what is it about going into
"public" service that makes these people sprout angels wings? What
makes them sprout devil horns when they instead go into business?
Since "public" service also has the power problem, which is absent in
business, why wouldn't the general trend be exactly the opposite of
the way you apparently believe the incentives to lie?

Date: 20 Feb 2007 21:13:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1171999711.550938.87880@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> What do you think changes the nature of human beings when the they go
> into "public" service? Since a person who goes into "public" service
> could just as well go into big business, what is it about going into
> "public" service that makes these people sprout angels wings? What
> makes them sprout devil horns when they instead go into business?
> Since "public" service also has the power problem, which is absent in
> business, why wouldn't the general trend be exactly the opposite of
> the way you apparently believe the incentives to lie?

To these guys socialism is the natural state of the world. They think that
seatbelt and helmet laws demonstrate a "civilized" society and not a
totalitarian state.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 13:48:59
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 17, 8:39 pm, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 2/17/07 8:27 PM, in article
> 1171772846.138961.124...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>
>
>
>
>
> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
> >> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>
> >> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
> >> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
> >> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
> >> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
> >> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
> >> succeed.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > Have you changed?
>
> > You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
> > or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
> > supported you.
>
> > Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
> > yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Yo Ass Bag....
> I have college education AND am still moving up.......

Dumbass -

Do you remember when your excuse for both of them was not having a
trust fund?

Personal responsibility baby, it's a good thing.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 18 Feb 2007 14:09:49
From: ST
Subject: Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/18/07 1:48 PM, in article
1171835339.764777.261130@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 17, 8:39 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> On 2/17/07 8:27 PM, in article
>> 1171772846.138961.124...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
>>>> layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......
>>
>>>> Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
>>>> can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
>>>> (intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like
>>>> working
>>>> at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
>>>> are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
>>>> succeed.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>
>>> Have you changed?
>>
>>> You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
>>> or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
>>> supported you.
>>
>>> Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
>>> yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.
>>
>>> thanks,
>>
>>> K. Gringioni.
>>
>> Yo Ass Bag....
>> I have college education AND am still moving up.......
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Do you remember when your excuse for both of them was not having a
> trust fund?
>
> Personal responsibility baby, it's a good thing.
>
>
> thanks,
&